o  JO  A.!iva«n  3H1  o 


-i_r_L!r_j' 

«   SANTA  BARBARA   « 


o    OF  CALIFORNIA     o 


W 


^ 


5^ 


»    iO  AXyilflll  3Hi    ». 


o  VKV8KV8  VINVS  e 


o    AilSil9AINn  iHi    » 


o    THE  IIBRARV  OF    o 


— E^ 


cbri 


viNaodiiv3  JO   o 


o  vxvsuva  vxNvs  o 


9 


S 


5fi 


o    AllSlOAINn  3HI    o 


o    THE  IIBRARV  OF    o 


^S 


03 


n 


o    viN»ojnv3  JO 


e    THE  UNIVERSITY     o 


^& 


B 


SANTA  BARBARA 


I 

\ 


o     OF    CALIFORNIA     o 


THE    UNIVERSITY 


> 
Z 
z> 


JO    ADVMn    3H1     » 


/ 


°    SANTA  BARBARA    ° 


\ 


w 


Wl 


*ilS»3AINn    3Hl     o 


\ 


3ih 


iO   A«Vd«l1    3H1 


/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/baptistsystemexaOOseisiala 


.THE 

BAPTIST  SYSTEM  EXAMINED, 

THE  CHURCH  VINDICATED, 
AND  SECTARIANISM  REBUKED. 


A   REVIEW  OF  DE.  FULLER  AND  OTHERS 


"^aplism  anb  llje  SCcrma  of  Communion." 


EEY.  J.  A.  SEISS,  A.M. 

PASTOR    OF    LOMBARD    STREET    LUTBEBAN    CHURCH,    BALTIMORE,    MD, 


THIRD  KDiriOX  KEVISEI)  AND  ENLARGED. 


BALTIMORE: 
T.    NEWTON    KURTZ, 

No.  151  TTEST  PRATT  STREET. 

1859. 


|A^ 


Entered  accordiug  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858,  by 

T.    NEWTON    KURTZ, 

in  ttie  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Mm-j-land. 


STEREOTTPKD    BT  L.  JOHNSON  AND  CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE. 


This  book  has  grown  out  of  a  series  of  articles  pub-, 
lished  in  the  Lutheran  Observer  during  the  winter  and 
spring  of  1854,  which,  with  a  few  emendations  and 
additions,  soon  after  appeared  in  a  small  volume,  which 
has  been  for  some  time  out  of  print.  The  constant 
inquiry  for  it,  and  the  urgent  solicitations  of  the  pub- 
lisher, have  induced  the  author  to  prepare  it  for  a  new 
edition.  It  has  been  mostly  rewritten,  materially 
enlarged,  and  is  now  meant  to  be  a  compact  resum6  of 
the  whole  controversy.  The  aim  of  the  author  has 
been  to  produce  something  more  than  is  to  be  found  in 
the  ordinary  and  small  treatises  on  the  subject,  and 
something  less  elaborate  and  scholastic  than  the  larger 
works  which  are  seldom  found  outside  of  the  libraries 
of  the  learned.  The  book  is  designed  to  give,  in  a 
form  adapted  to  the  common  reader,  a  full  view  of  the 
questions  between  us  and  Baptists,  and  thus  to  aid  pas- 
tors in  ridding  themselves  of  the  annoyances  to  which 
an  insolent,  fawning,  and  insidious  sectarianism  often 
subjects  them. 

The  author  has  endeavored  to  "speak  the  truth  in 
love."  If  comment  has  occasionally  assumed  a  tone  of 
severity,  facts  and  fidelity  not  only  excuse  but  demand 
it.  The  wisdom  that  comes  from  above  prefers  purity 
to  peace.     Truth  will  admit  of  no  compromises  with 

1«  5 


6  PREFACE. 

error.  It  must  be  spoken ;  and  to  speak  it  without  feel- 
ing is  to  treat  it  with  indifference.  The  malicious  and 
slanderous  intentions  which  have  been  assigned,  from 
the  pulpit  and  elsewhere,  as  the  motives  prompting  the 
former  issues  of  this  work,  are  firmly  disclaimed.  The 
author  does  not  beg  for  favors,  but  he  insists  upon 
justice.  The  teachings  of  Baptists  are  full  of  the 
grossest  assaults  upon  the  Church  and  its  ordinances, 
which,  with  our  convictions,  we  are  in  duty  bound  to 
meet  and  expose.  "Earnestly  contend  for  the  faith 
which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  is  an  inspired 
injunction  which  the  writer  does  not  feel  at  liberty  to 
neglect.  He  believes  that  Baptists  are  in  serious  error, 
and  he  would  reclaim  them  if  possible,  at  least  check 
their  misdirected  zeal,  by  showing  that  material  modi- 
fications of  their  system  ar^  essential  to  harmonize  it 
with  the  truth.  And  above  all  would  he  furnish  to 
sincere,  unsuspecting,  but  uninformed  people  the  means 
of  protection  against  the  mischievous  entanglements  of 
a  sectarianism  which  holds  in  its  very  life  the  excom- 
munication of  all  but  its  own  abettors. 

May  God  bless  this  attempt  to  defend  the  Church 
from  the  imposition  of  a  modal  observance  not  required 
in  his  word,  and  overrule  its  destiny  to  the  restraint  of 
unwarranted  proscriptiveness  and  to  the  praise  of  his 
ever-adorable  name ! 

Baltimore,  September  1st,  1858. 


CONTENTS. 


PART  FIRST. 

PAGE 

Chap.  I. — Introductory  Observations — Question  st&ted  9 

II. — General  Arguments, 18 

III.— Meaning  of  the  Word  Bapto 29 

IV.— The  Addition  of  zo 43 

V. — The  Question  of  Divers  Significations 51 

VI. — Baptizo — The  Lexicons 57 

VII.— Baptizo— The  Classics 67 

VIII.— Baptizo— The  Authorities 89 

IX.— Baptizo— The  Septuagint 105 

X.— Baptizo— The  Fathers 118 

XI. — Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament — Preliminary 

Question 137 

XII. — Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament — Jewish  Lus- 
trations   150 

XIII. — Baptizo  in  the   New  Testament — Its  True 

Meaning : 164 

XIV. — Mode  of  Baptism — Scriptural  Hints 185 

XV. — Mode  of  Baptism — Baptist  Arguments 203 

XVI. — Mode  of  Baptism — Baptist  Arguments  con- 
tinued   234 

7 


8  CONTENTS. 

PAQB 

Chap.   XVII.— History  of  Baptism  as  to  Mode 248 

XVIII. — Mode  of  Baptism  practiced  by  the  Greek 

Church 260 

XIX. — Developments  and  Tendencies  of  the  Bap- 
tist System 268 

XX. — Analogy — An      Independent     Argument 

against  the  Baptist  Dogma 277 

PART  SECOND. 

XXL— Infant  Baptism  no  Sin 286 

XXII. — Infant  Baptism  not  contrary  to  the  Com- 
mission   294 

XXIII. — Relations  of  Infants  to  the  Kingdom — An 

Argument  for  their  Baptism 317 

XXIV. — Infant  Baptism  practiced  by  the  Apostles   337 

PART  THIRD. 
XXV.— The  Terms  of  Communion 371 


THE 

EAPTIST  SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 


CHAPTEE  I. 


INTRODUCTORY  OBSERVATIONS — THE  QUESTION 
PRESENTED. 

Baptism  is  an  appointment  of  God, — a  sacra- 
ment of  our  holy  religion.  The  command  of  Jesus 
is,  **Go,  teach  [make  disciples,  or  Christians,  of] 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you."  It  is  not  a  matter  of  in- 
difference whether  we  have  been  baptized  or  not. 
The  apostle  classes  baptism  among  "  the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ."  It  is  vitally  connected 
with  Christianity  itself  Every  Chx-istian  should 
therefore  know  in  what  it  consists,  and  who  may 
properly  receive  it.  The  disagreements  which 
have  sprung  up  upon  these  points  are  much  to  be 
regretted. 

For  the  most  part,  those  who  hold  to  baptism 
.as  an  external  ordinance  maintain  and  teach,  that 

9 


10  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

it  is  the  religious  application  of  water,  according 
to  the  formulary  of  Christ,  by  an  authorized  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel,  in  any  quantity,  to  any  subject 
that  is  at  all  in  the  condition  of  being  made  a 
learner  in  Christ.  It  also  seems  remarkable  that 
any  should  dissent  from  this  view  of  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  in  the  case.  There  is,  however, 
a  large  and  varied  class  of  religionists  who  differ 
from  this  general  understanding  of  the  Church, 
and  insist,  even  to  the  excommunication  of  those 
who  do  not  think  with  them,  that  there  is  no  true 
and  valid  baptism  where  the  subject  is  not  an  adult 
believer,  and  wholly  immersed  in  water.  Book 
after  book  has  been  written,  and  circulated  with 
unfaltering  industry,  charging  the  Church  with 
apostasy  from  Christ's  commands  on  this  subject 
for  more  than  a  thousand  years. 

One  of  the  more  recent  productions  on  this  con- 
troversy, is  a  12mo  volume  of  251  pages,  entitled 
''Baptism  and  the  Terms  of  Communion:  an  Argu- 
ment, hy  Bichard  Fuller."  This  book  is  published 
by  authority,  has  reached  its  third  edition,  and  is 
distributed  and  spoken  of  by  Baptists  as  present- 
ing the  chief  strength  of  their  position.  Its 
author  is  known  as  a  gentleman  of  fortune,  an  ex- 
lawyer,  a  doctor  of  divinity,  and  a  minister  highly 
esteemed  and  honored  by  the  people  with  whom 
he  operates.  He  professes  to  write  in  a  catholic 
and  fraternal  spirit;  and,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  of  his  fundamental  positions,  he  evidently 
presents  some  improvement  upon  the  temper  of 
those  whose  exploded  philology  and  logic  he  has ' 
so  diligently  collected  and  reproduced.    He  avows 


INTRODUCTORY   OBSERVATIONS.  11 

himself  "a  Baptist  on  principle,  and  not  in  sectarian 
ism  nor  bigotry;"  that  is,  he  claims  to  be  an 
exception  to  Baptists  generally,  who,  if  we  are  to 
take  the  implications  of  his  own  avowal,  are  both 
sectarian  and  bigoted.  How  far  he  is  entitled  to 
this  exemption  will  appear  more  clearly  in  what 
is  to  follow.  We  take  up  his  book,  and  shall 
assign  it  the  prominent  place  in  this  treatise, 
because  it  is  one  of  the  most  recent  on  that  side 
of  the  question,  and  presents  all  the  latest  phases 
of  the  Baptist  argument,  and  is  considered  by 
some  as  unanswerable. 

To  which  of  the  many  tribes  of  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination Dr.  Fuller  belongs,  he  does  not  tell  us. 
He  rather  insinuates  that  he  does  not  exactly  coin- 
cide with  either  class  of  that  diversified  household. 
This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  convenient  way  to 
excuse  himself  from  responsibility  for  some  of 
the  more  disagreeable  features  connected  with  the 
Baptist  sj'stem.  Indeed,  whatever  exceptions  we 
may  be  compelled  to  take  to  his  doctrines  or  his 
logic,  we  may  readily  accord  to  him  much  tact 
and  shrewdness  as  a  dialectician.  His  ^'Argument," 
to  those  unacquainted  with  the  subject,  bears  an 
air  of  plausibility  very  well  calculated  to  make 
an  impression.  His  dexterous  evasions,  his  subtle 
management  to  pass  off  for  granted  the  very 
things  to  be  proven,  his  array  of  learned  authori- 
ties on  points  which  nobody  denies,  and  the 
whining  affectation  with  which  he  presents  his 
doctrines,  to  say  nothing  of  his  misrepresentations 
and  unreliable  quotations,  give  to  his  book  a 
certain  factitious  force,  to  which  his  cause  is  by 


12  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

no  means  entitled,  and  which,  by  divine  help,  we 
propose  to  reduce  to  its  real  nothingness. 

For  Dr.  Fuller  personally  we  have  none  but  the 
kindest  feelings.  We  trust  that,  with  all  his  mis- 
takes and  false  reasonings,  he  is  conscientious  and 
sincere.  The  numerous  unfortunate  predicaments 
in  which  he  has  placed  himself  in  his  book  may 
have  resulted,  in  part,  from  habits  brought  with 
him  from  another  profession,  but  much  more  from 
the  mistakes,  to  say  nothing  worse,  of  those  whom 
he  has  chosen  as  his  guides.  We  will  not  say  of 
him,  as  the  biographer  of  Carson  has  said  of  the 
rejecters  of  the  Baptist  system,  that  "want  of  re- 
ligious honesty"  has  been  the  controlling  secret.  He 
is  a  fellow-laborer  in  the  gospel  in  the  same  city  with 
us.  He  is  respected  as  a  Christian.  We  award  to 
his  intentions  the  character  of  uprightness.  If 
conscience  did  permit,  we  would  rather  agree  than 
dispute  with  him.  We  have  no  love  for  contro- 
versy. It  pains  us  as  much  to  be  driven  into  these 
contentions  about  sacred  things  as  it  pains  Dr. 
Fuller  and  his  friends  to  exclude  us  from  the  table 
of  the  Lord.  It  is  not  that  we  love  our  Baptist 
brethren  less,  but  because  we  love  truth  more,  that 
we  have  been  induced  to  take  up  the  pen  in  this 
connection. 

This,  however,  is  the  fact,  that  Dr.  Fuller,  in 
common  with  others,  has  ventured  upon  a  move- 
ment of  aggression  upon  the  cherished  faith  and 
practice  of  millions  upon  millions  of  Christian 
believers.  He  has  solemnly  and  emphatically 
given  out  the  charge,  that  about  one  hundred  and 
ninety-five  out  of  every  two  hundi*ed  of  the  great 


INTRODUCTORY  OBSERVATIONS.        13 

household  of  Christ  are  guilty  of  downright  and 
palpable  violation  of  one  of  the  plainest  and  most 
positive  commands  of  the  Savior,  that  they  are  quite 
outside  of  the  true  visible  Church,  and  that  they 
are  occupying  a  position  of  risk  and  jeopardy 
enough  to  alarm  every  serious  mind.  In  this  we 
believe  him  to  be  altogether  mistaken.  But  he  has 
pressed  the  matter  with  all  his  strength,  and  con- 
tinues to  press  it,  and  hundreds  more  are  devoting 
their  time  and  energies  almost  exclusively  to  the 
same  point;  and  there  is  no  alternative  left  us  but 
to  surrender  our  convictions  and  the  liberty 
which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  to  take  up  one 
of  the  swords  which  have  been  defiantly  crossed 
before  us.  We  have  no  fault  to  find  with  our 
Baptist  friends  for  choosing  to  perform  their  bap- 
tisms by  immersion.  This  is  a  liberty  of  which 
we  have  no  wish  to  deprive  them.  But  the  arro- 
gant assumptions  with  which  it  is  sought  to  brand 
our  baptism  as  not  only  invalid  but  profane,  and 
the  unwarranted  exclusiveness  of  denying  to  us  a 
place  in  the  visible  Church  or  any  good  hope  of 
heaven,  we  cannot  give  place  to  by  subjection,  no, 
not  for  an  hour,  lest  the  truth  of  the  gospel  be 
wrested  from  us.  We  stand  entirely  on  the  de- 
fensive. And,  if  Dr.  Fuller  is  disposed  to  complain 
that  his  teachings  are  controverted,  let  him  not 
forget  the  daring  assault  which  he  has  made  upon 
the  faith  and  hope  of  myriads  of  God's  children. 
If  he  should  feel  himself  incommoded  by  the 
resistance  encountered,  let  him  recollect  that  he 
has  "cast  the  glove." 

To  those  familiar  with  the  Baptist  controversy 


14  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

it  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  the  features  of  the 
system  which  Dr.  Fuller's  "argument"  is  designed 
to  sustain.  It  is  that  maintained  in  common 
by  Campbellites,  Christ-ians,  Tunkers,  Millerites, 
and  all  other  Baptists.  We  do  not  attribute  to 
him  all  the  vagaries  and  heresies  of  the  parties 
named,  but  mean,  simply,  that  the  system  which 
he  supports  is  that  supported  by  all  Baptists. 
But,  as  he  disclaims  being  a  Baptist  in  the  depart- 
ments of  "sectarianism  and  bigotry,"  and  is  very 
solicitous  that  his  reviewers  should  quote  him 
fairly,  it  may  be  as  well,  once  for  all,  to  show  what 
his  position  is.  It  may  be  summed  up  in  the 
following  particulars : — 

1.  That  baptism  is  immersion  in  tvater;  and  that 
where  there  is  not  a  total  immersion  there  is  no  bap- 
tism. He  says,  "Baptizo  always  denotes  a  total 
immersion."  "Jesus  commands  his  disciples  to  be 
immersed."  "The  very  thing,  the  only  act  he 
commands,  is  immersion."    (Pp.  19,  50,  70.) 

2.  That  all  baptisms, — though  performed  by  regu- 
lar ministers  with  the  solemn  design  to  administer 
Christ's  ordinance,  though  the  subjects  be  believers 
devoutl}^  intending  to  .receive  the  baptismal  sacra- 
ment, though  the  holy  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  be  reverently  invoked, — 
unless  the  whole  body  be  immersed,  are  altogether  vain 
and  nugatory,  and  the  parties  remain  unbaptized. 
He  evinces  a  singular  cautiousness  and  reserve  as 
to  the  plain  and  categorical  avowal  of  this  inevi- 
table sequence  of  his  first  position;  but  the  evi- 
dence that  this  is  his  doctrine  is  so  clear,  as  well 
upon  the  face  as  in  the  very  marrow  of  his  "argu- 


INTRODUCTORY   OBSERVATIONS.  15 

ment,"  that  he  will  not  dare  to  disclaim  it.  "No 
one  can  partake  of  the  [Lord's]  Supper/'  says  he, 
"who  is  not  a  member  in  a  visible  Church." 
"Baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  admission  into  a 
visible  Church  properly  organized."  '^ Baptizo 
signifies  to  immerse,  and  has  no  other  meaning." 
"We  cannot  admit  to  the  Supper  those  whom  we 
regard  as  unbaptized."  "We  cannot  recognize 
church-membership  in  Pedobaptist  Churches  as 
conferring  any  sort  of  title  to  the  Supper."  "To 
admit  them  would  be  to  admit  members  without 
baptism."  It  is  plain,  then,  that  he  repudiates  all 
baptisms  which  have  not  been  performed  by  the 
total  immersion  of  the  subject. 

3.  That  to  refuse  to  be  immersed  is  disobedience  to  a 
positive  command,  involving  a  degree  of  criminality 
making  the  prospect  of  final  salvation  exceedingly  prob- 
lematical. This  is  another  point  on  which  he  is  a 
little  unsteady, —  now  half  affirming,  and  then 
half  denying, — at  one  time  seeming  to  recognize 
us  as  his  dear  brethren  in  Christ,  and  at  another 
time  pointing  with  horror  to  our  dreadful  danger 
by  reason  of  our  disobedience  in  the  one  thing 
of  going  under  the  water.  But  why  this  mouth- 
ing of  a  matter  so  solemn,  and  entering  so  vitally 
into  this  controversy?  Why  not  out  boldly  and 
fairly?  We  are  either  Christians  entitled  to  heaven, 
or  we  are  not.  If  we  are  Christians  accepted  of 
God,  then  all  this  ado  about  baptizo  and  immersion 
is  sheer  nonsense  and  sectarian  chicanery,  and 
the  unimmersed,  if  obedient  in  other  respects,  are 
as  good  and  as  safe  as  the  immersed,  whether  once 
or  thrice,  backwards  or  forwards.     If  Dr.  Fuller 


16  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

admits  this,  he  surrenders  his  cause,  and  the  con- 
troversy is  at  an  end;  and,  if  he  does  not  admit 
it,  tlion  he  maintains  that  the  salvation  of  the 
unimmersed  is  exceedingly  doubtful,  and  he  can 
have  no  clear  hope  of  meeting  any  of  them  in 
heaven.  But  hear  him  : — "  My  dear  reader,  the 
matter  before  you  is  not  an  abstraction :  it  is  a 
plain  duty  which  meets  you  at  the  very  thresh- 
old of  the  Christian  course,  and  which  you  may 
not  evade  without  insult  to  the  Savior  and  peril 
TO  YOUR  SOUL."  "  I  regard  baptism  just  as  I  do 
any  other  command;  and  I  dare  not  trench  upon 
God's  prerogative  and  decide  what  is  to  be  the 
consequence  in  eternity  of  disobedience  to  any  com- 
mand." '^  Do  not  say  we  lay  too  much  stress  on 
baptism  [i.e.  immersion].  Upon  this  point  I 
adjure  you  not  to  upbraid  us,  but  to  obey  Christ." 
(Pp.  101,  104, 105.)  In  what  light  do  these  state- 
ments place  our  author  but  in  that  of  holding  that 
the  absence  of  immersion  disqualifies  for  heaven? 

4.  That  to  baptize  an  infant  is  not  only  useless,  but 
an  infraction  of  the  command  of  Christ,  and  a  positive 
sin.  "  Infant  baptism,"  says  he,  "  makes  void  the 
commandment  of  God  by  a  human  tradition." 
"  It  reflects  ingloriously  upon  God  and  tarnishes 
the  glory  of  the  atonement."  He  even  compares 
the  practice  of  it  to  the  scenes  of  "  Bedlam." 
(Pp.  207,  209,  123.) 

5.  That  the  wisest  and  holiest  men  on  earth  have  no 
right  ivhatever  to  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  so  long  as  they  have  not  been  immersed  in 
tcater.  He  says,  "  We  cannot  recognize  church- 
membership  IN  these  bodies  [Pedobaptist  Churches'] 


INTRODUCTORY   OBSERVATIONS.  17 

AS  CONFERRING  ANT  SORT  OP  TITLE  TO  THE  SUP- 
PER," (p.  238.)     These  are  plain  words. 

We  do  not  suppose  that  Dr.  Fuller  will  pro- 
nounce these  quotations  unfair.  If  these  particu- 
lars do  not  present  the  doctrinal  essence  of  his 
book,  it  teaches  nothing,  and  his  "argument"  is 
a  mere  beating  of  the  air.  We  have  no  wish  to 
ascribe  to  him  what  he  has  not  avowed  in  some 
tangible  shape.  We  do  not,  thei'efore,  misrepre- 
sent him,  or  in  the  least  pervert  his  meaning, 
when  we  affirm  that,  according  to  him,  Christ  has 
commanded  men  to  be  immersed;  that  all  who 
are  not  immersed  are  outside  of  the  pale  of  the 
visible  Church,  and  in  great  danger  of  losing  their 
souls;  that  to  administer  baptism  to  an  infant  is 
an  evil  and  a  wicked  prostitution  of  a  Christian 
ordinance;  and  that  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism, or  refusal  to  be  immersed,  is  disobedience  to 
Christ,  involving  and  arguing  unfitness  to  partake 
of  the  Holy  Supper,  and  furnishing  ground  to  fear 
exclusion  from  heaven. 

All  THIS  WE  emphatically  deny.  Here,  then, 
we  join  issue,  and  invite  all  to  hear,  and  consider, 
and  decide  for  the  truth,  on  whichever  side  it  may- 
be found. 


2* 


18  THE   BAPTIST    SYbTEM   EXAM1^ED. 


CHAPTEE  II. 

GENERAL   ARGUMENTS, 

Before  proceeding  to  analyze  the  Baptist  argu- 
ment as  Dr.  Fuller  has  presented  it,  we  desire  to 
advert  to  a  few  general  considerations  which  weigh 
so  strongly  against  his  doctrine,  as  to  be  them- 
selves conclusive  unless  confronted  with  the  most 
solid  and  inflexible  proofs  to  the  contrary. 

1.  The  whole  gospel  system  is  a  system  of  liberty 
It  was  so  predicted:  Isa.  xlii.  7,  Ixi.  1.  It  was  so 
proclaimed  by  its  first  preachers  :  Eom.  vii.  6,  viii. 
2;  Gal.  v.  1.  It  is  specifically  presented  as  a 
system  of  freedom  from  the  bondage  of  burden- 
some ceremonies :  Gal.  iv.  3-7.  Paul  says  ex- 
pressly, "  If  ye  be  dead  with  Christ  from  the  rudi- 
ments of  the  world,  why,  as  though  living  in  the 
world,  are  ye  subject  to  ordinances?"  (Col.  ii.  20.) 
"Why  is  my  liberty  judged  of  another  man's  con- 
science?" (1  Cor.  X.  29.)  "Stand  fast,  therefore,  in 
the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free, 
and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bond- 
age." (Gal.  V.  1.)  And  how  dissonant  with  this 
"perfect  law  of  liberty,"  how  subversive  of  the 
free  spirit  of  the  gospel,  how  like  the  old  bondage 
to  grievous  ceremonies,  and  how  unlikely  to  be 


GENERAL   ARGUMENTS.  19 

a  part  of  the  glorious  economy  of  grace,  to  have 
all  its  sublime  blessings  bound  up  in  and  made 
dependent  on  the  miserable  little  external  accident 
of  being  far  enough  in  the  waters  of  baptism  to 
have  them  close  for  an  instant  over  our  heads ! 
How  utterly  foreign  to  the  whole  strain  and 
spirit  of  '^the  better  covenant"  that  even  the  least 
of  its  precious  promises  should  be  linked  with 
such  a  mere  puncto  of  outward  ceremony!  The 
thing  is  so  grossly  incongruous  with  all  that  re- 
lates to  the  nature  of  a  system  pre-eminently 
spiritual  and  gracious,  that  it  cannot  be  soberly 
entertained  for  a  moment,  except  upon  the  clearest 
and  most  unexceptionable  proofs. 

II.  The  vast  and  overwhelming  majority  of  all 
Christian  people  for  many,  many  ages,  including 
multitudes  whose  names  the  Church  wears  upon 
her  heart  as  the  jewelry  of  the  cross, — men  as 
conscientious,  holy,  studious,  learned,  and  gifted 
by  the  Spirit  as  any  that  ever  sunk  beneath  the 
waters, — men  who  fought  the  battles  of  the  Lord, 
and  won  to  themselves  holy  renown  as  wide  as 
Christendom  and  lasting  as  the  world, —  have 
maintained  that  there  is  no  law  requiring  Chris- 
tians to  be  immersed,  and  were  themselves  never 
immersed.  And  are  we  to  believe  that  they  were 
all  unbaptized,  all  unqualified  to  commune  in  the 
holy  Supper,  all  outside  of  the  visible  Church,  all 
fundamentally  wrong  in  their  views  of  the  first 
principles  of  Christianity,  and  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  any  of  them  have  reached  heaven?  How 
dare  we  thus  sunder  the  cords  of  sympathy  which 


20  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

bind  us  to  our  fathers,  and.  extinguish  the  glowing 
hope  of  meeting  them  in  glory?  How  can  we 
thus  asperse  their  fame  and  insult  their  memories 
and  their  honored  graves  ?  Well  does  Dr.  Fuller 
speak  of  this  as  "  a  matter  which  is  painful."  But 
the  very  painfulness  of  it  is  a  powerful  prestimp- 
tion  against  the  truth  of  his  system,  and  a  pre- 
sumption which  cannot  be  set  aside  except  by  the 
resistless  force  of  demonstration  itself.  To  talk 
of  "  lodged  and  incurable  prejudices"  does  not 
mend  the  matter,  but  only  adds  a  deeper  tinge 
of  sadness  to  our  contemplations  of  the  honored 
dead.  If  our  illustrious  ancestors  and  predecessors 
were  all  in  error^  if  the  world's  great  lights  were 
all  so  far  from  the  truth,  as  the  Baptist  theory 
teaches,  let  us  not  be  taunted  by  the  mockery  of 
consolation  that  theirs  was  a  wilful  blindness. 
We  are  sorry  to  find  our  Baptist  friends  in  such 
hot  haste  to  pass  from  this  point  the  very  moment 
it  is  touched.  It  is  a  great  and '  interesting  in- 
quiry,— one  which,  next  to  that  of  our  own  per- 
sonal salvation,  is  the  most  important  and  absorb- 
ing involved  in  this  debate.  To  declare  it  "im- 
pertinent" does  neither  render  it  so  nor  meet  the 
question.  And,  if  Dr.  Fuller  is  an  exception 
among  Baptists,  he  has  shown  upon  this  point 
that  he  is  not  so  far  an  exception  among  men  as 
to  be  able  to  grasp  a  hot  iron  with  a  steady  firm- 
ness. The  very  thought  seems  to  appall  him, — as 
well  it  may, —  and  he  hastens  to  bury  it  out  of 
his  own  and  his  reader's  sight.  We  here  again 
drag  it  forth  to  his  view  as  a  thing  which  he  must 
face  or  give  up  his   theory.     We  press  it  upon 


GENERAL  ARGUMENTS.  21 

every  immersionist,  not  as  absolute  proof  of  the 
error  of  his  system,  but  as  presumptive  evidence 
against  him  which  must  be  taken  as  decisive 
unless  set  aside  by  testimony  which  will  admit 
of  no  escape. 

III.  Mere  modes  and  ceremonial  particulars  are 
never  treated  of  in  connection  with  other  appoint- 
ments of  Christ;  and  we  cannot  conceive  how  bap- 
tism should  be  made  an  exception.  Christ  has 
enjoined  the  celebration  of  the  holy  Supper;  but 
he  has  said  nothing  as  to  the  outward  manner  in 
which  that  sacrament  is  to  be  observed.  Ho 
ordained  the  Christian  ministry,  but  has  said 
nothing  as  to  how  we  are  to  go  to  the  nations,  or 
as  to  the  mode  in  which  we  are  to  deliver  the 
gospel  message.  He  has  made  it  obligatory  ujion 
us  not  to  forsake  the  assembling  of  ourselves  to- 
gether for  public  worship;  but  he  has  enjoined 
nothing  as  to  how  these  sacred  convocations  are 
to  be  held,  or  as  to  the  specific  ritual  by  which 
their  exercises  are  to  be  regulated.  He  has  made 
it  our  duty  to  pray ;  but  he  has  not  designated  the 
times  for  it,  nor  told  us  whether  it  is  to  be  done 
kneeling,  standing,  sitting,  extempore,  or  from  a 
written  form.  And  so  in  regard  to  all  his  great 
commandments:  it  is  the  thing  in  its  real  sub- 
stance which  he  enjoins,  whilst  the  particular 
mode  of  it  is  left  free  to  be  adapted  to  circum- 
stances. And,  as  specific  forms  or  modes  have  no 
essential  connection  with  any  other  great  require- 
ments of  God,  the  strong  presumption  is  that  it  is 
the  same  in  the  case  of  baptism.    It  is  the  spiritual 


22  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

substance  of  the  thing  that  the  Scriptures  are  con- 
cerned with,  and  little  variable  external  accidents 
are  not  taken  into  account.  The  spiritual  essence 
of  baptism  is  induction  or  inauguration  into  the 
faith  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  is  upon  this  that  the  Scrij)tures  continually  fix, 
without  even  so  much  as  specifically  prescribing 
the  element  to  be  used,  much  less  the  mode  in 
which  it  is  to  be  used.  All  analogy,  therefore,  is 
against  the  Baptist  theory,  and  must  forever 
overrule  it,  unless  demonstration  of  the  most 
positive  nature  can  be  produced  to  the  contrary. 

IV.  The  scope  and  meaning  of  baptism  itself  is 
against  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren.  It 
is  the  sacrament  of  regeneration  and  remission  of 
sins.  The  command  of  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost was,  "  Be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  (Acts  ii.  38.)  Ananias  said  to 
Paul,  "Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins."  (Acts  xxii.  16.)  Jesus  says,  "Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  (John  iii.  8 ;)  a  passage 
concerning  which  Wall  justly  says,  "  There  is  not 
any  one  Christian  writer,  of  any  antiquity,  in  any 
language,  but  who  understands  it  of  baptism;  and, 
if  it  be  not  so  understood,  it  is  difficult  to  give  an 
account  how  a  person  is  born  of  water  any  more 
than  born  of  wood."  Paul  speaks  of  Christians  as 
"saved  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  as  having  "put  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of 
Christ"  (Tit.  iii.  5,  6 ;  Col.  ii.  11,  13.)    Peter  says, 


GENERAL    ARGUMENTS.  23 

"Baptism  doth  also  now  save  us;"  a  sacrament 
which  he  describes  to  be,  "not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God."  (1  Peter  iii.  21.)  Christ 
gave  himself  for  the  Church,  "that  he  might  sanc- 
tify and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  word."  (Eph.  v.  25,  26.)  Irenajus  styles  bap- 
tism "our  regeneration  unto  God."  (Lib.  i.  cap. 
18.)  TertuUian  calls  it  "  the  happy  sacrament  of 
water,  whereby  we  are  washed  from  the  sins  of  our 
former  blindness  and  recovered  to  eternal  life." 
(Mason's  Selections,  p.  111.)  Origen  says,  "The 
baptism  of  the  Church  is  given  for  the  remission 
of  sins."  Augustine  exclaims,  "Behold!  pei'sons 
are  baptized,  then  all  their  sins  are  forgiven." 
(Sermon  on  Rom.  viii.  30.)  Upon  the  question, 
"What  are  the  benefits  of  baptism?"  Luther 
answers,  "  It  works  the  forgiveness  of  sins." 
(Small  Cat.,  Part  4.)  Calvin  says,  "Remission 
of  sins  is  so  dependent  on  baptism  that  it  can- 
not by  any  means  be  separated  from  it."  (Inst., 
torn.  iv.  cap.  15,  sec.  4.  The  Confession  of  Hel- 
vetia says,  "  To  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ 
is  to  be  enrolled,  entered,  and  received  into  cove- 
nant and  family,  and  so  into  the  inheritance  of  the 
sons  of  God.  Baptism,  according  to  the  institution 
of  the  Lord,  is  the  fount  of  regeneration."  The 
Bohemian  Confession  calls  it  "the  sacrament  of 
the  new  birth ;  that  is,  of  regeneration  or  washing 
with  water  in  the  word  of  life."  The  Confession 
of  France  says  that  in  it  "we  are  engrafted  into 
Christ's  body,  that,,  being  washed  in  his  blood,  we 
may  also  be  renewed  to  holiness  of  life."    Knapp, 


24  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

whom.  Dr.  Fuller  quotes  with  so  much  approbation, 
says,  "Baptism  represents  purification  from  sins, 
and  is  designed  to  promote  this  end  in  the  one  who 
is  baptized."  (Theol.,  vol.  ii.  p.  510.)  Flacius  says, 
"  Baptism,  and  to  be  baptized,  means  an  internal 
washing,  remission  of  sins,  and  an  ever-continuing 
renewal."  (Clavis's  Scrip.  Sac,  art.  Bapt.,  p.  66.) 

But  to  multiply  authorities  upon  this  point  is 
needless.  All  sound  theologians  admit  and  contend 
that  baptism,  in  its  true  acceptation,  is  not  a 
mere  external  ordinance,  but  a  sacrament  of  deep 
spiritual  import,  in  which  the  soul  is  absolved 
from  guilt  and  savingly  incorporated  with  Jesus 
Christ. 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  We  do  not  teach 
or  hold  the  doctrine  ordinarily  called  "  Baptismal 
Eegeneration ;"  i.e.  we  do  not  believe  that  the 
mere  application  of  water  to  a  human  subject,  in 
any  mode  or  quantity,  can  wash  away  sins  or  work 
any  subjective  change  in  the  heart.  What  we 
affirm,  and  what  we  understand  to  be  affirmed  in 
these  quotations,  is,  that  baptism  is  a  thing  for  the 
soul  as  well  as  for  the  body;  that  it  fails  to  become 
true  baptism  unless  attended  or  followed  with 
spii'itual  experience,  conformity  to  the  baptismal 
vow,  and  that  purity  of  heart  which  the  water 
typifies ;  that  this  high  spiritual  conception  of  this 
sacrament  is  the  only  true  conception  of  it ;  and 
that,  in  this  respect,  it  carries  with  it  the  virtue  and 
efficacy  which  are  here  ascribed  to  it.  It  is  a 
thing  which  relatesT  to  the  inner  man  and  to  the 
relations  and  experiences  of  the  spirit.     It  is  "  not 


GENERAL  ARGUMENTS.  25 

the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God." 

JVhat,  we  would  then  ask,  has  quantity  of  water 
to  do  with  these  internal  and  spiritual  things,  with 
giving  a  man  a  good  conscience  or  inspiring  him. 
with  a  new  life  ?  The  whole  office  of  the  mere 
water  of  baptism  is  to  represent  and  typify  an 
inward  purification,  a  renovation  of  the  soul, 
without  which  baptism  fails  to  be  baptism,  and 
becomes  a  mere  profitless,  dead  work.  And  surely 
no  man  in  his  senses  will  pretend  to  deny  that  a 
few  handfuls  of  water  from  the  crystal  spring  can 
as  well  sjmhoWzG  purity  as  tons  of  the  contents  of 
the  filthy  pools  or  stagnant  cisterns  to  which  Bap- 
tists ordinarily  invite  their  converts.  "  I  admit," 
says  Carson,  "  that  sprinkling  a  little  water  on  any 
part  of  the  body  might  be  an  emblem  of  purifi- 
cation." (P.  IQi.)  To  those  who  can  dispute  so 
plain  a  proposition  we  have  no  reply  to  make. 
And  the  veiy  fact  that  baptism  looks  to  the  purifi- 
cation of  the  spirit  and  the  washing  away  of  sins, 
renders  it  almost  impossible  to  believe  for  one 
moment  that  the  validity  and  force  of  so  spiritual 
a  sacrament  should  depend  upon  the  depth  of  the 
water  used  in  its  outward  administration. 

V.  Looking  at  the  foundation  upon  which  Dr. 
Fuller  rests  the  whole  fabric  of  his  proscriptive 
system,  we  are  at  once  struck  with  the  extraor- 
dinary fact  that  his  entire  argument  comprises 
nothing  but  a  mere  philological  disquisition  upon 
the  meaning  of  one  little  Greek  word.  The  entire 
eleven  chapters  devoted  to  this  part  of  the  subject 

3 


26  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

are  occupied  with  the  one  single  point,  What  does 
haptizo  mean  ?  "  The  matter  before  us,"  says  he, 
"is  a  calm  philological  inquirj^  as  to  the  meaning 
of  a  Greek  word.  .  .  .  The  simple  inquiry  is,  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  baptizo."  (P.  12.) 
His  interpretation  of  this  simple  word  is  the  alpha 
and  omega,  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end,  the 
body,  soul,  and  spirit,  of  all  he  has  to  present  to 
prove  that  nihety-five  hundredths  of  Christ's 
people  are  in  a  state  of  downright  disobedience  to 
their  Lord,  unfit  for  membership  in  "  our  churches," 
or  to  approach  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  without  any 
sure  or  reliable  hope  of  final  salvation.  This  cer- 
tainly is  very  remarkable,  that  the  great  law  of 
the  gospel,  and  a  point  involving  the  eternal  well- 
being  and  aifecting  the  hopes  of  millions  of  Chris- 
tian people,  should  be  made  to  turn  upon  one  little 
word.  Is  it  not  an  astounding  doctrine,  that  in 
a  divine  revelation  forming  a  library  in  itself  a 
merciful  and  condescending  God  should  have  sus- 
pended the  issues  of  his  sublime  scheme  of  grace 
upon  the  doubtful  import  of  one  single  Greek 
word  ?  According  to  the  ancient  prophets,  the 
way  of  salvation  is  an  open  "highway,"  in  which 
"wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  shall  not  err,"  (Isa. 
XXXV.  8,) — so  "  plain  that  he  may  run  that  readeth 
it,"  (Hab.  ii.  2,) — and  laid  down  in  divers  forms, 
"  precept  upon  precept,  precept  upon  precept,  line 
upon  line,  line  upon  line,  here  a  little  and  there  a 
little."  (Isa.  xxviii.  10.)  But  it  seems,  after  all, 
that  we  must  take  Dr.  Fuller's  say-so,  or  go  to  the 
study  of  Greek,  before  we  can  learn  it;  that  the 
whole  question  lies  in  the  interpretation  of  one 


GENERAL  ARGUMENTS.  27 

Greek  word;  and  that  we  must  go  back  to  the  old 
heathen  writers  to  ascertain  whether  we  are 
Christians,  and  consult  Orpheus,  Heraclides  Pon- 
ticus,  Polybius,  the  Greek  scholiasts  on  Euripides 
and  Aratus,  Alcibiades,  Anacreon,  J^sop,  and  Dio- 
dorus  Siculus,  to  find  out  whether  or  not  we  have 
a  good  hope  for  heaven  !  Let  the  reader  but  look 
at  it,  and  consider  the  real  nature  of  the  question, 
and  the  real  character  of  the  testimony  adduced  to 
decide  it,  and  he  will  find  that  Dr.  Fuller's  "  argu- 
ment" bears  absurdities  upon  its  very  face  into 
which  we  would  hardly  think  it  possible  for  a  sane 
man  to  fall. 

YI.  It  is  also  a  very  remarkable  fact,  and  hard 
to  be  accounted  for,  that^  if  the  Baptist  theory  be 
true,  it  was  so  long  in  being  discovered.  The 
doctrine  that  "  baptizo  means  to  immerse  and  no- 
thing else"  is  one  of  but  recent  development.  It  is 
nowhere  so  taught  in  all  the  records  of  antiquity. 
Until  within  a  few  scores  of  years,  it  lay  concealed 
from  all  the  learned  men  of  all  ages  and  nations. 
We  have  histories  of  Greek  literature  from  Homer, 
a  thousand  years  before  Christ  was  born,  to  Con- 
stantinus  Harmenopulus,  nearly  fourteen  hundred 
years  since  Christ  left  this  world,  including  all  the 
writings  of  the  poets,  orators,  historians,  phy- 
sicians, philosophers,  mathematicians,  geographers, 
rhetoricians,  and  philologists  of  Greece,  the  Greek 
fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  Byzantine 
writers  of  the  Middle  Ages;  and  yet  we  have  no 
account  for  all  that  time,  nor  up  to  a  very  recent 
period,  that  any  author  ever  assumed  the  position 


28  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

by  which  it  is  now  sought  to  excommunicate  the 
great  majority  of  the  most  eminent,  active,  and 
devout  followers  of  Jesus  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Is  not  this  exceedingly  wonderful  ?  Who  can 
believe  that  a  truth  so  essential  to  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Church — assuming  it  to  be  a  truth — 
would  have  remained  in  such  obscurity,  so  entirely 
hidden  from  the  most  careful  observations  of  all 
men,  until  this  eleventh  hour  of  the  world  ?  Why, 
the  allegations  of  the  Mormon  prophet  with  regard 
to  his  new  revelation  are  hardly  less  credible. 
Surely,  the  theory  of  our  Baptist  friends  is  neither 
in  the  Bible,  nor  in  the  Greek  language,  or  else  the 
high  place  of  the  subject  in  the  Christian  system 
would  needs  have  secured  for  it  the  notice  of 
scholars  and  divines,  or  engaged  some  special  j)ro- 
vidence  to  bring  it  into  view  long  ere  this. 

We  submit,  then,  that  these  prima  facie  and  a 
priori  considerations  so  embai*rass,  cripple,  and 
contradict  the  whole  Baptist  scheme,  that  they 
must  be  conclusive  of  the  question  unless  they 
can  be  confronted  with  direct,  positive,  and  un- 
equivocal evidences  to  the  contrary. 

What  sort  of  evidences  Dr.  Puller  offers,  will  be 
our  next  subject  of  inquiry. 


THE   MEANING   OF   TUE    WORD   BAPTO.  29 


CHAPTEE  III. 

THE   MEANING   OF   THE   WORD    "  BAPTO." 

All  must  agree  that  the  word  baptizo,  which  is 
the  disputed  word  in  this  controversy,  is  a  deriva- 
tive of  the  word  bapto.  It  is  equally  certain  that 
one  of  the  ways  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a 
secondary  word  is  to  find  out  the  signification  of 
its  root  or  primitive.  But,  upon  this  law  of  inter- 
pretation. Dr.  Fuller,  if  we  understand  him  aright, 
has  undertaken  to  differ  from  other  people.  We 
say  if  we  understand  him  rightly;  for  there  is 
a  nebulosity  about  this  part  of  his  "argument" 
which  renders  it  difficult  of  comprehension. 
Though  he  names  his  mental  processes,  as  he  has 
here  given  them,  "a  calm  philological  inquiry," 
we  defy  any  man  to  find  an  equal  number  of  pages 
under  such  a  title  so  utterly  barren  of  herme- 
neutical  reasoning  and  illustration,  or  so  full  of 
confusion  and  absurdities.  We  shall  endeavor, 
however,  to  extract  the  component  elements  of 
his  "  disquisition,"  and  to  classify  its  jumbled  de- 
partments, so  as  to  reason  upon  them  intelligently 
and  in  order. 

Dr.  Fuller  starts  out  by  affirming  that  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  bapto  in  this  controversy.  This 
is  his  first  canon,  to  the  paternity  of  which  he  is 
3* 


80  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

exclusively  entitled.  No  respectable  writer,  evei 
of  his  school,  80  far  as  we  know,  has  ever  taker 
such  a  position.  Neither  does  he  accompany  il 
with  the  least  attempt  at  proof, — as  though  it  were 
a  thing  which  nobody  would  dare  to  call  in  ques- 
tion. His  ffiend  Mr.  Carson,  on  whom  he  so  con- 
fidently relies,  declares  that  the  word  haptizo  is 
formed  from  hapto.  Indeed,  Dr.  Fuller  himself 
subsequently  loses  sight  of  his  own  declaration, 
and  proceeds  to  found  an  argument  on  hapto  to 
prove  that  haptizo  means  immerse  and  nothing 
else.  "In  the  Greek  language,"  says  he,  "the 
addition  of  zo  rather  enforces  than  diminishes  the 
primitive  verb;"  as,  ^^ hapto,  to  dip;  haptizo,  to 
make  one  dip."  We  will  therefore  endeavor  to 
ascertain  first  the  meaning  of  hapto,  and  then  exa- 
mine the  value  or  force  of  the  addition  of  zo,  and 
thus  show  that  Dr.  Fuller's  doctrine  concern- 
ing the  word  haptizo  is  a  sheer  assumption  and 
forever  untenable. 

Now,  we  assert,  and  will  prove  to  the  reader's 
satisfaction,  that  hapto,  so  far  from  meaning  a 
total  submersion  and  nothing  else,  means  also  to 
wash,  to  cleanse,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  to  hedetv,  to  stain, 
to  tinge,  and  to  dye,  without  regard  to  mode,  and  in 
some  cases  even  to  sprinkle. 

Our  first  appeal  is  to  the  lexicographers,  whom 
Mr.  Campbell,  from  whom  Dr.  Fuller  has  ex- 
tensively drawn,  pronounces  "the  most  learned 
and  the  most  competent  witnesses  in  this  case  in 
the  world."     (Debate  with  Eice,  p.  58.) 

We  begin  with  the  native  Greeks,  who,  accord- 
ing to  high  Baptist  authority,  are  unexceptionable 


THE  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTO.     31 

guides  in  this  matter,  and  mnst  needs  understand 
their  own  language  better  than  foreigners. 

The  first  is  Hesychius,  who  lived  in  the  fourth 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  and  is  the  oldest 
native  Greek  lexicographer  with  whom  we  are 
acquainted.  He  defines  the  word  bapto.  He  assigns 
to  it  but  one  general  meaning;  and  that  meaning 
he  finds  in  the  word  antleo,  which  signifies  to 
draw  or  pump  water,  and  has  no  reference  what- 
ever to  mode  or  immersion. 

2.  Next  in  order  is  Gases,  also  a  native  Greek, 
who  compiled  a  large  and  valuable  lexicon  of  the 
ancient  Greek  language,  which  is  generally  used 
and  held  in  high  estimation  by  those  who  speak 
the  Greek.  He  defines  bapto  by  brecho,  pluno, 
gemizo,  buthizo,  antleo;  that  is,  to  wet,  moisten,  or 
bedew;  to  wash,  to  fill,  to  dip;  to  draw  or  pump 
water. 

3.  Hedericus  defines  the  word  bapto  by  "  mergo, 
immergo,  tingo,  intingo,  lavo ;"  that  is,  to  dip,  to 
plunge,  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  wash. 

4.  Coulon  defines  bapto  by  "mergo,  tingo,  abluo  j" 
that  is,  to  dip,  to  dye,  to  cleanse. 

5.  Ursinus  defines  it  by  "  abluo,  aspergo ;"  that 
is,  to  wash,  to  sprinkle. 

6.  Scapula  defines  it  by  "mergo,  immergo, — 
item  tingo,  inficere,  imbruere, — item  lavo;"  that  is, 
to  dip,  to  plunge, — also  to  stain  or  tinge,  to  dye, 
imbrue, — also  to  wash. 

7.  Schrevelius  defines  it  by  "mergo,  intingo, 
lavo,  haurio ;"  that  is,  to  dip,  dye,  wash,  draw 
water. 

8.  Donnegan  translates  bapto  "  to  dip,  to  plunge 


o2  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

into  water,  to  submerge,  to  wash,  to  dye,  to  color, 
to  wash,  to  draw  out  water." 

9.  Pickering  renders  it,  to  dip;  to  steep,  dye, 
color;  to  wash;  to  draw  up;  to  fill  by  drawing  up; 
to  bathe  one's  self. 

10.  Liddell  and  Scott  render  it,  to  dip ;  to  dip  in 
dye,  color,  steep ;  to  dye  the  hair. 

11.  Dunbar  renders  it,  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse; 
to  wash;  to  wet,  moisten,  sprinkle;  to  dye,  stain, 
color. 

Now,  if  these  lexicographers  are  "the  most 
learned  and  the  most  competent  witnesses  in  this 
case  in  the  world,"  as  the  most  learned  Baptists 
have  admitted,  our  position  is  already  made  out 
and  sustained.  Every  man  acquainted  with  the 
Latin  knows  that  lavo  means  simply  to  wash, 
without  regard  to  mode;  and  that,  when  it  occa- 
sionally departs  from  its  simple  and  direct  mean- 
ing, it  signifies  sprinkling  as  well  as  any  other  appli- 
cation of  water.  Ainsworth,  Andrews,  Anthon, 
and  others  give  besprinkle  and  bedew  as  among  its 
significations.  Hedericus,  Scapula,  Schrevelius, 
give  lavo  as  one  of  the  fixed  meanings  of  bapto. 
Abluo  certainly  means  simply  to  wash  or  cleanse; 
and  Coulon  and  Ursinus  give  abluo  as  the  mean- 
ing of  bapto.  Brecho  unquestionably  means  simply 
to  wet,  moisten,  ^r 'bedew,  and  so  pluno  means 
simply  to  wash,  or  cleanse;  and  these  are  the  first 
and  prominent  meanings  which  Gases  applies  to 
bapto.  And  Donnegan,  Pickering,  and  Dunbar,  in 
plain  English,  give  wash  as  a  proper  interpreta- 
tion of  bapto.  Washing  and  cleansing  do  not 
necessarily  imply  immersion.     Moistening,  bedew- 


THE   MEANING   OF   THE  WORD   BAPTO.  33 

Lng,  sprinkling,  staining,  and  dyeing  the  hair,  pre- 
clude immersion  altogether.     Bapto,  therefore, 

DOES  NOT  ALWAYS  MEAN  TO  IMMERSE  AND  NO- 
THING ELSE. 

To  the  lexicographers  we  add  a  few  authorities. 
One  of  particular  value  in  this  controversy  is  from 
the  distinguished  Baptist  critic,  Alexander  Carson, 
of  Tubbermore,  Ireland.  ^^  Bapto,"  says  he,  ^^sig- 
nifies  TO    DYE    BY  SPRINKLING,   AS  PROPERLY  AS   BY 

DIPPING,  though  originally  it  was  confined  to  the 
latter."  He  refers  to  examples,  in  which,  he  says, 
"  it  could  not  he  known  even  that  bapto  has  the  mean- 
ing of  dip."  "  The  word,"  says  he,  "  has  come  by 
appropriation  to  denote  dyeing,  without  reference  to 
mode."  "Nor  are  such  applications  of  the  word 
to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor,  as  Dr.  Gale 
asserts.  They  are  as  literal  as  the  primitive 
MEANING."  (Pp.  44,  45,  51,  Carson  on  Baptism.)' 
According  to  this  lauded  scholar,  then,  bapto,  so 
far  from  always  signifying  immersion,  is  often 
used  in  its  literal  sense  where  mode  is  altogether 
excluded. 

Another  authority  is  Edwards,  who  was  for 
many  years  a  respected  Baptist  minister.  "I 
will  say  thus  much  of  the  term  bapto,"  says  he: 
"that  it  is  a  term  of  such  latitude  that  he  who 
shall  attempt  to  prove,  from  its  use  in  various 
authors,  an  absolute  and  total  immersion,  will  find 
he  has  undertaken  that  which  he  cannot  per- 
form." 

Another  is  the  Methodist  theologian.  Dr.  "Wat- 
son, who  says,  "  The  verb  bapto,  with  its  deriva- 
tives, signifies  to  dip  the  hand  into  a  dish,  to  stain 


34  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

a  vesture  with  blood,  to  wet  the  body  with  dew, 
to  paint  or  smear  the  face  with  colors,  to  stain  the 
hand  by  pressing  a  substance,  to  be  overwhelmed 
in  the  waters  as  a  sunken  ship,  to  be  drowned  by 
falling  into  the  water,  to  sink  in  the  neuter  sense, 
to  immerse  totally,  to  plunge  up  to  the  neck,  to 
be  immersed  up  to  the  middle,  to  be  drunk  with 
wine,  to  be  dyed,  tinged,  or  imbued,  to  wash  by 
affusion  of  water,  to  pour  water  upon  the  hands  or 
any  part  of  the  body,  to  besprinkle." 

Professor  Wilson,  of  the  Eoyal  College,  Belfast, 
says,  "  That  bapto  denotes  to  dye,  loithout  regard  to 
mode,  and  even  where  immersion  is  in  terms  ex- 
cluded, is  beyond  the  pale  of  candid  disputation/' 

All  this  ought  to  be  enough  to  satisfy  men  on 
this  subject.  It  is  competent,  however,  to  go  be- 
yond lexicons  and  authorities  to  the  passages  in 
which  the  word  bapto  is  used.  We  therefore  make 
an  appeal  to  the  Greek  language  itself  We  will 
begin  with  the  Septuagint,  or  Greek  version  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  Apocrypha,  as  being  the  most 
nearly  related  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  teachings  of  which  on  this  subject  it  is 
our  wish  to  ascertain. 

In  Daniel  iv.  33  (we  give  the  reference  as  in 
the  English  Bible)  it  is  written,  "And  he  [Nebu- 
chadnezzar] was  driven  from  men,  and  did  eat 
grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body  [ebaphae'}  was  wet  with 
[apo,  p-oni]  the  dew  of  heaven."  Also  in  Daniel 
v.  21 :  "  They  fed  him  with  grass  like  oxen,  and 
his  body  \_ebaphae']  was  wet  with  the  dew  of 
heaven."  Here  is  bapto  in  two  instances,  in  both 
of  which  it  signifies  the  gentle  moistening  of  an 


THE  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTO.      35 

exposed  body  from  the  falling  dew.  "Was  it  a  ease 
of  immersion  ?  Mr.  Carson  says,  "  If  all  the  water 
in  the  ocean  had  thus  fallen  on  the  monarch,  it 
would  not  have  been  a  literal  immersion.  The 
mode  would  still  be  wanting."  (P.  36.)  Neither 
was  it  a  figurative  any  more  than  a  literal  immer- 
sion. It  was  simply  a  icetting;  and  no  man  can 
make  any  thing  more  out  of  it. 

In  Leviticus  xiv.  4-6,  we  have  these  words, 
"  Then  shall  the  priest  command  to  take  for  him 
that  is  to  be  cleansed  two  birds  alive  and  clean, 
and  cedar-wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop;  and  the 
priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the  birds  be  killed 
in  an  earthen  vessel,  over  running  water.  As  for 
the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar-wood, 
and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  [bapsei^ 
dip  them  and  the  living  bird  in  the  blood  of  the 
bird  that  was  killed."  Here  is  a  case  of  the  use 
of  bapto  where  total  immersion  was  an  impossi- 
bility. How  can  you  totally  immerse  a  living 
bird,  cedar-wood,  scarlet,  and  hyssop  in  the  blood 
of  a  single  bird?  Dr.  Fuller  is  evidently  em- 
barrassed with  this  passage,  and  disposes  of  it  in 
a  way  exceedingly  reprehensible.  He  tells  us  that 
he  "trembles  when  he  remembers  the  language  of 
God  as  to  him  who  adds  to  or  takes  from  the  words 
of  the  Bible."  We  are  therefore  surprised  at  the 
liberty  which  he  has  taken  with  the  verses  we 
have  just  quoted.  On  page  45,  under  express  pre- 
tensions to  honesty,  where  he  charges  that  others 
have  been  dishonest,  he  records  these  words: — "If 
my  readers  will  refer  to  the  chapter,  they  will  see 
that  water  was  to  be  taken  from  a  running  stream 


36  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

in  some  vessel,  and  into  this  water  the  blood  of  tlie 
bird  was  to  fall,  into  this  vessel  the  dipping  was 
to  be  performed.'^  We  believe  that  he  has  im- 
ported this  from  Mr.  Carson,  who  has  led  him 
astray  on  more  than  one  point.  But,  from  what- 
ever source  he  obtained  it,  it  is  simply  untrue. 
There  is  nothing  of  the  sort  in  the  record  of  the 
case.  His  reference  to  verses  50,  51  will  not 
relieve  the  palpable  misrepresentation  which  he 
has  put  upon  record.  Those  verses  refer  to  the 
cleansing  of  A  house;  the  case  in  point  refers  to 
the  cleansing  of  A  man.  But  neither  ai-e  his 
statements  true  in  the  case  of  the  house.  His 
language  is  as  follows: — "First,  the  blood  is  poured 
into  a  vessel  of  running  water."  (We  have  heard 
of  woodeyi,  earthen,  and  brazen  vessels;  but  we  have 
yet  to  learn  what  is  meant  by  ''  vessels  of  running 
water" !)  But  such  is  our  author's  version  of  this 
prescription: — "First,  the  blood  is  poured  into  a 
vessel  of  running  water.  Then  the  things  are  dipped. 
Lastly,  the  defiled  objects  are  sprinkled."  Now, 
look  at  the  passage  of  which  this  pretends  to  be 
the  luminous  explanation.  You  will  observe  that 
it  contains  nothing  about  the  pouring  of  the  blood, 
and  nothing  about  vessels  of  running  ivater.  Moses 
knew  nothing  about  such  ceremonies  or  such 
utensils  for  the  cleansing  of  lepers.  Here  is  the 
passage  to  which  Dr.  Fuller  specifically  refers : — 
"And  he  shall  take  to  cleanse  the  house  two  birds, 
and  cedar-wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop;  and  he 
shall  kill  the  one  of  the  two  birds  in  an  earthen 
vessel,  OVER  running  water;  and  he  shall  take  the 
cedar-wood,  and  the  hyssop,  and  the  scarlet,  and 


THE    MEANING    OF   THE    WORD   BAPTO.  37 

the  living  bird,  and  [bapsei]  shall  dip  them  in  the 
BLOOD  OF  THE  SLAIN  BIRD."  Thus  far  there  was 
no  mingling  of  water  in  the  provision  for  cleansing 
either  a  house  or  a  man.  The  "earthen  vessel," 
and  the  dying  bird  in  it,  were  only  to  be  held  "  over 
running  water."  The  living  bird,  and  the  cedar- 
wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  were  then 
to  be  smeared  in  the  blood  of  the  one  slain  bird 
unmingled  with  any  thing  else.  And  that  smearing — 
for  it  could  not  possibly  have  been  any  thing  more — 
is  denoted  by  the  word  bapto.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  bapto,  as  the  Greeks  used  it,  does  not 
always  signify  immersion.  We  agree,  w^itli  Dr. 
Fuller,  that  "nothing  can  be  more  explicit  than 
this  chapter;"  but  we  must  also  say  that  his 
version  of  it  is  unauthorized  by  the  word  of  God. 
To  use  his  own  language,  "that  he  designed  any 
perversion  of  God's  word,  we  do  not  affirm.  We 
assail  nobody's  sincerity;  but  his  entire  ignorance 
of  the  import  of  the  chapter  is  inexcusable."  Yet 
these  are  the  sort  of  arguments  by  which  he  would 
justify  himself  and  others  in  the  excommunication 
of  nearly  all  Christendom  itself  Will  he  note 
this  among  his  "morsels  from  the  Baltimore 
Tracts"  ? 

In  Joshua  iii.  15,  we  have  this  record: — "And  as 
they  that  bare  the  ark  were  come  unto  Jordan, 
and  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark 
[^ebaphaesan']  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water,  .  .  . 
the  waters  which  came  down  from  above  stood 
and  rose  up  upon  a  heap,  .  .  .  and  the  priests  that 
bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  stood 
firm  on  dry  ground."    Here  the  mere  touching  of 

4 


38  THE   BAPTIST    SVSTEM    EXAMINED. 

the  priests'  feet  "in  the  brim"  of  Jordan's  out- 
spread waters,  and  from  •which  touch  those  waters 
instantly  shrank  away  so  as  to  leave  ^'dry  ground" 
from  shore  to  shore,  is  denoted  by  bapto.  Not 
even  the  shadow  of  immersion  is  contained  in  the 
passage,  much  less  a  total  immersion. 

Here,  then,  are  clear  and  decisive  instances  of 
the  use  of  bapto  where  the  idea  of  submersion  is 
foreign  and  excluded  by  the  nature  of  things,  and 
this  in  Greek  the  most  closely  related  to  that  of 
the  New  Testament.  "We  will  give  other  instances 
to  the  same  effect  from  classic  usage. 

In  Arrian's  History  of  Alexander  the  Great,  we 
have  this  sentence: — "Nearchus  relates  that  the 
Indians  [baptontai'j  dye  their  beards."  Certainly 
no  one  will  undertake  to  say  that  these  Indians 
immersed  their  beards. 

In  ^lian  it  is  said  of  an  old  coxcomb  that  "he 
endeavored  to  conceal  the  hoariness  of  his  hair 
by  [baphae']  coloring  it."  Did  the  old  gentleman 
immerse  his  hair? 

In  jEschylus  we  have  the  sentence,  "This 
garment,  stained  by  the  sword  of  -S^gisthus."  A 
sword  certainly  could  not  immerse  a  garment  A 
sword  is  not  a  fluid. 

In  Hippocrates  we  read,  "  when  it  drops  upon  the 
garments  they  \baptetai]  are  dyed"  Dr.  Fuller 
says  that  bapto  means  to  dye,  because  dyeing  is 
by  immersion;  but  here  we  have  the  dyeing  by 
dropping,  and  the  Baptist  labors  in  vain  to  get 
immersion  into  the  passage. 

Marcus  Antoninus : — "The  soul  \baptetai]  is  tine- 


THE  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTO.      39 

tured  by  the  thoughts."  Is  the  mind  immersed 
by  its  thoughts? 

Aristophanes  speaks  of  Magnes  as  "  imitating  the 
Lydians,  and  writing  Psanes,  and  [bapto7ne7ios] 
smearing  himself  with  frog-colored  paints."  Did 
he  immerse  himself  in  these  washes  or  paints? 

Aristotle  has  the  phrase,  "  but,  being  pressed,  it 
\baptai']  stains  and  colors  the  hands."  Are  we  to 
understand  that  the  juice  of  an  article  when 
pressed  in  the  fist  immerses  the  fist  ? 

In  a  comic  poem  entitled  "The  Battle  of  the 
Frogs  and  the  Mice,"  we  have  an  account  of  the 
slaughter  of  one  of  the  combatants;  and  the  effect 
of  his  blood  upon  the  lake,  on  the  shore  of  which 
he  fell,  is  denoted  by  bapto.  We  give  Pope's 
translation : — 

"Gasping  he  rolls :  a  purple  stream  of  blood 
Distaina  the  surface  of  the  silver  flood." 

Could  a  lake  be  immersed — totally  immersed — in 
the  blood  of  a  dying  frog  or  mouse?  Hear  IVIr. 
Carson  : — "  To  suppose  there  is  here  any  extrava- 
gant allusion  to  the  literal  immersion  or  dipping 
of  a  lake  is  a  monstrous  perversion  of  taste."  (So 
we  would  think.)  "  The  lake  is  said  to  be  dyed,  not 
dipped.  There  is  in  the  word  no  reference  to  mode. 
What  a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric  is  the 
figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a 
mouse!  Never  was  there  such  a  figure.  The 
Jake  is  not  said  to  be  dipped  in  blood,  but  to  be  dyed 
with  blood."  (P.  48.)  Very  well  said,  and  very 
much  to  our  purpose.     Here  then,  again,  bapto  can- 


40  XHii   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   KXAMINEJU. 

not  mean  immersion,  but  signifies  simply  to  tinge 
or  color  slightly,  without  reference  to  mode. 

There  is  also  an  instance  in  Hippocrates  where 
bapto  is  used  with  epi,  upon.  And,  as  it  is  sheer 
nonsense  to  talk  of  immersing  upon,  bapto  from 
this  must  needs  have  in  it  a  signification  to 
embrace  the  application  of  the  element  to  the  sub- 
ject without  immersion. 

We  give  but  one  other  instance  from  the  classics. 
Herodotus  says,  "The  Egyptians  consider  the 
swine  so  polluted  a  beast,  that,  if  any  one  in  pass- 
ing touch  a  swine,  he  will  go  away  and  wash  him- 
self with  his  very  garments."  Here  is  bapto 
employed  to  denote  a  religious  washing  for  the 
purpose  of  cleansing  from  a  defiling  touch.  What 
more  can  we  need?  All  these  instances  present 
bapto  completely  stripped  of  every  vestige  of  that 
mere  modal  signification  which  Dr.  Fuller  tells  us 
it  always  has. 

Add  yet  a  quotation  or  two  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament itself. 

In  Matthew  xxvi.  23,  the  Savior  says,  "He  that 
[embapsasl  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish, 
the  same  shall  betray  me."  Suppose  that  the 
Savior  and  his  disciples  had  before  them  a  large 
vessel  filled  with  liquid  food, — for,  if  it  was  not 
liquid,  all  possibility  of  immersion  is  excluded : 
are  we  to  be  told  that  he  and  Judas  both  together, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  taking  a  meal,  totally 
immersed  their  hands  in  it?  The  idea  is  prepos- 
terous. Here,  then,  bapto  does  not  mean  to  im- 
merse ;  and  Dr.  Fuller's  theory  has  another  contra- 
diction from  the  lips  of  Christ  himself 


THE   MEANING   OF   THE  WOED   BAPTO.  41 

In  Eevelation  xix.  13,  John"  says  of  Him  who  is 
faithful  and  true,  "And  he  was  clothed  with  a 
vesture  {bebammeyioii]  dipped  in  blood."  The  figure 
is  that  of  a  conqueror  from  the  field  of  battle,  with 
his  clothing  stained  with  the  blood  of  his  slain  foes. 
The  allusion  is  plainly  to  Isa.  Ixiii.  2,  3 : — "Where- 
fore art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  garments 
like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  wine-fat  ?  I  have  trodden 
the  wine-press  alone  j  and  of  the  people  there  was 
none  with  me ;  for  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger, 
and  trample  them  in  my  fury,  and  their  blood  shall 

he  SPRINKLED  UPON   MY  GARMENTS,  and  I  Will  STAIN 

all  my  raiment."  It  is  a  remarkable  and  over- 
whelming fact  in  this  connection  that  the  two 
oldest  and  best  translations  of  the  Apocalypse — 
the-  Syriac  and  Ethiopic  versions — render  this 
bebammenon  by  terms  denoting  sprinkling.  "Wick- 
liffe  translates  it  spreynt,  or  sprinkled.  The  Eheims 
version  does  the  same.  And  so  Origen,  himself  a 
Greek,  when  citing  this  passage,  gives  errantis- 
menon,  which  means  sprinkled,  as  the  equivalent 
of  bapto  as  here  used.  Does  not  this  settle  the 
question  ? 

Now,  with  this  half  a  score  of  lexicographers, 
and  this  list  of  authorities,  with  the  most  learned 
of  the  Baptist  critics  at  its  head,  and  these  nume- 
rous instances,  all  testifying  that  bapto  may  be 
used  without  respect  to  mode,  who  can  resist  the 
conviction  that  it  does  not  mean  simply  to  immerse 
and  nothing  else? 

According  to  Hedericus,  Ursinus,  Scapula, 
Schrevelius,  Donnegan,  Dunbar,  Grove,  Watson, 


42  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

and  Herodotus,  it  means  to  wash, — simply  to 
wash. 

According  to  Hedericus,  Coulon,  TJrsinus,  Sca- 
pula, Schrevelius,  Donnegan,  Pickering,  Liddell 
and  Scott,  Dunbar,  Grove,  Carson,  Watson,  Wil- 
son, and  others  whom  we  have  quoted,  it  means 
to  stain  and  dye,  even  where  the  process  is  by 
dropping,  pressing,  smearing,  and  even,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  hair,  by  rubbing. 

According  to  Gases,  Grove,  Watson,  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version  of  Daniel,  and  jEschylus,  it  means 
to  moisten,  wet,  or  bedew,  as  by  the  distillation  of  the 
dews  of  the  night,  or  by  the  flowing  of  blood  upon 
the  garments  from  wounds. 

And,  according  to  Ursinus,  Grove,  Watson, 
Hippocrates,  the  Syriac  and  Ethiopic  versions  of 
the  Apocalypse,  and  even  Origen,  it  means  to 
besprinkle;  whilst  Hedericus,  Scapula,  and 
Schrevelius  also  render  it  by  lavo,  which  includes 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  as  well  as  any  other  appli- 
cation of  water. 

He  who  can  resist  such  evidence  can  resist 
demonstration  itself.  Our  case,  therefore,  as 
respects  bapto,  is  made  out.  Our  statement  that 
it  means  to  wash,  cleanse,  wet,  moisten,  bedew, 
stain,  tinge,  and  dye,  without  regard  to  mode,  and 
even  to  besprinkle,  stands  verified,  firm,  and  im- 
movable. 

Bapto  does  not  mean  mere  mode, — to  immerse 
and  nothing  else. 


THE   ADDITION   OF   ZO.  43 


CHAPTEE  ly. 


THE  ADDITION   OF  "  ZO." 


The  next  step  in  our  progress  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  will  be  to  examine  the  force  of 
the  termination  of  20,  or  izo,  when  added  to  a  primi- 
tive word. 

Upon  this  little  particle  there  has  been  much 
said,  and  contradictory  theories  have  been 
broached. 

Mr.  Campbell  takes  the  ground  that  the  addition 
ofzo  does  not  alter  the  sense  of  the  primitive  word 
to  which  it  is  affixed,  but  "  indicates  the  rapidity 
with  which  the  action  is  to  be  performed."  If  this 
be  a  true  position,  baptizo  (that  is,  bapto  with  the 
addition  of  zo)  would  signify  a  more  rapid,  and, 
consequently,  only  a  more  superficial,  washing, 
cleansing,  wetting,  or  sprinkling  than  that  indi- 
cated by  bapto. 

Others  have  thought  that  all  verbs  ending  in  zo 
are  to  be  taken  as  frequentative,  indicating  that  the 
action  is  to  be  successively  repeated.  But  this 
theorj^  meets  with  but  little  favor  even  with  Bap- 
tist critics. 

An«extensively-received  opinion  is  that  verbs 
ending  in  zo  are  precisely  of  the  same  power  and 
signification  with  the  primitives  from  which  they 


44  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

are  formed,  and  that  zo  or  izo  is  added  only  for  the 
sake  of  euphony.  Thus,  pnigo  and  pnigizo  both 
mean  to  strangle  or  choke;  euoreo  and  euoriazo, 
both,  to  be  careless  or  unconcerned ;  biao  and  hiazo, 
both,  to  force  or  compel.  Hence,  Dr.  Gale,  one  of 
the  most  learned  Baptist  authors,  takes  hapto  and 
baptizo  as  "  exactly  the  same  as  to  signification," 
and  holds  it  perfectly  warrantable  to  argue  "pro- 
miscuously from  both."  Mr.  Carson  says  to  this, 
"As  far  as  respects  an  increase  or  diminution  of 
the  action  of  the  verb,  I  perfectly  agree  with  the 
writer.  That  one  is  more  or  less  than  the  other, 
as  to  mode  or  frequency,  is  a  perfectly  groundless 
conceit."  (P.  19.)  And  Mr.  Campbell,  notwith- 
standing his  doctrine  of  rapidity,  agrees  that  "a 
change  on  the  end  of  a  word,  when  agreeable  to 
the  ear,  soon  loses  its  meaning  by  being  extended 
to  many  words,  for  the  sake  of  euphony.  So  of 
the  termination  zo."  If,  then,  we  are  to  adopt  this 
theory,  baptizo  means  simply  to  wash,  cleanse,  wet, 
stain,  sprinkle,  &c.,  the  same  as  bapto. 

But  all  this  does  not  avail  for  Dr.  Fuller.  He 
must  have  a  new  theory;  and  a  remarkable  com- 
pound, it  is.  "  In  the  Greek  language,"  says  he, 
"the  addition  of  zo  rather  enforces  the  primitive 
verb.  It  imparts  a  peculiar  significancy,  and 
seems  generally  to  denote  the  transferring  to 
another,  or  performing  upon  another,  the  thing 
designated.  Thus, — bapto,  to  dip ;  baptizo,  to  make 
one  dip ;  that  is,  to  immerse"  !  A  clever  bid,  this, 
for  Mr.  Carson's  premium  for  nonsense.  1Kb  en- 
forces the  primitive  verb,  and  transfers  it  to 
another !    and   performs  it  upon   another ! !    and 


THE   ADDITION    OF   ZO.  45 

completes  it  in  "  immersion  and  nothing  else"  ! 
Surely  this  zo  is  a  wonderful  particle  in  Dr.  Fuller's 
estimation.  But  see  his  illusti'ations.  ^'  Zo  rather 
enforces,  transfers,  performs  upon  another,  the 
primitive  verb;  thus, — sophos,  wise;  sophizo,  to 
make  wise."  Sophos  a  verb  !  enforced,  transferred, 
performed  upon  another,  by  the  addition  of  zo ! ! 
What  an  interpreter  to  show  the  meaning  of  a 
Greek  word  which,  as  he  teaches,  involves  the 
Christian  character  and  eternal  hopes  of  all  Chris- 
tendom itself!  Sophos  is  an  adjective,  which  admits 
of  no  performance,  (at  least  in  this  instance  it  has 
not  been  performed  upon  the  doctor,)  whilst  bapto 
and  baptizo  are  both  verbs.  The  analogy  which  he 
is  aiming  at,  to  be  complete,  must  therefore  be 
confined  to  verbs.  But  whether  wo  take  radical 
verbs  and  their  derivatives,  or  take  nouns,  ad- 
jectives, or  any  other  parts  of  speech,  and  the 
verbs  ending  in  zo  derived  from  or  related  to  them, 
we  shall  find  no  foundation  for  the  mysterious 
force  which,  the  doctor  is  pleased  to  assign  to  the 
afiix  of  zo,  concerning  which  he  modestly  tells  us 
that  great  "authors  only  betray  their  innocence 
of  the  Greek  language"  ! 

Let  us  look  at  a  few  cases : — 

1.  Nouns: — phos,  light;  photizo,  to  enlighten,  or 
put  in  process  of  becoming  illuminated :  eunouchos,  a 
eunuch  ;  eunouchizo,  to  make  a  eunuch,  or  to  put  in 
process  of  becoming  a  eunuch :  gunce,  genitive 
gunaikos,  a  woman ;  gunaikizo,  to  render  womanish, 
or  to  put  in  process  of  becoming  like  a  woman : 
doxa,  glory;  doxazo,  to  glorify,  or  put  in  process 
of  becoming  glorious :  paraskeua,  a  state  of  pre- 


46  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

paration ;  paraskeuazo,  to  make  preparation,  or  to 
put  in  process  of  becoming  prepared. 

2.  Adjectives: — katharos,  clean;  katharizo,  to 
cleanse,  or  put  in  process  of  becoming  clean  or 
pure :  phoinios,  red  as  blood ;  phoinizo,  to  redden, 
or  put  in  process  of  becoming  red. 

3.  Yerbs,  (and  here  the  cases  are  perfectly  ana- 
logous to  bapto,  baptizo:) — melaneo,  to  be  black; 
melaiiizo,  to  be  blackish,  or  in  a  condition  verging 
towards  black:  plouteo,  to  be  rich;  ploutizo,  to 
enrich,  or  put  in  process  of  becoming  rich  :  deipneo, 
to  sup ;  deipnizo,  to  make  ready  to  sup  :  phliio,  to 
overflow,  as  boiling  water  escaping  from  a  kettle ; 
phluzo,  to  bubble  up  so  as  to  tend  towards  an  over- 
flow. 

From  these  examples,  and  many  others  that 
might  easily  be  given,  it  would  appear  that  the 
addition  of  zo  or  izo  in  Greek  corresponds  to  our 
English  terminations  ize  and  ish,  which  have  most 
likely  taken  their  origin  from  it ;  as,  fertile,  fer- 
tilize; blue,  bluish,  &c.  If  so,  then  zo  has  only 
a  preparative  relation  to  the  primitive  word  to 
which  it  is  affixed,  and  indicates  a  diminution  of 
its  force.  That  which  is  blackish  is  not  yet  black. 
He  who  is  being  enriched  is  not  yet  rich.  The 
preparation  for  a  supper  is  not  yet  supping.  The 
water  that  bubbles  up  as  if  it  would  overflow  is 
not  necessarily  overflowing.  He  who  is  rendered 
womanish  is  not  yet  a  woman.  So  then  baptizo  is 
not  quite  a  bapto,  but  only  something  approxi- 
mating to  it. 

But  we  must  not  forget  Dr.  Fuller's  examples : — 
"  Oikeo,  to  dwell;  oikizo,  to  make  one  dwell.    So- 


THE    AUDITIU.N    OF    Z,0.  47 

phos,  wise;  sophizo,  to  make  wise.  Sophroneo,  to 
be  of  a  sound  mind ;  sophronizo,  to  make  one  of  a 
sound  mind.  And,  just  so,  bapto,  to  dip ;  haptizo, 
to  make  one  dip, — that  is,  to  immerse." 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  the  phrase 
"to  make  one  dip"  can  be  taken  here  as  synony- 
mous with  the  word  ^^  immerse."  If  Dr.  Fuller's 
theory  concerning  zo  means  any  thing,  it  assigns 
it  a  causative  force  the  stress  of  which  falls  upon 
the  actor  and  not  upon  the  subject.  "To  make 
one  dip"  is  to  cause  one  to  do  a  dipping.  It  sets 
one  to  the  performance  of  the  act,  but  it  does  not 
intensify  the  dipping,  or  transmute  it  into  an  im- 
mersion. 

It  is  also  a  matter  of  reasonable  curiosity  where 
Dr.  Fuller  obtained  the  significations  which  be 
assigns  to  the  words  he  gives  as  his  illustrations. 
If  the  reader  will  open  some  standard  Greek  lexi- 
con, he  will  find  that  oikeo  means  to  inhabit,  and 
oikizo,  to  render  habitable,  or  to  put  in  process 
of  becoming  inhabited.  Sophos  means  skilful; 
sophizo,  to  render  skilful,  or  to  put  in  process  of 
becoming  skilful.  Sophroneo  means  to  be  of  a 
sound  mind,  prudent,  or  discreet ;  sophronizo,  to 
render  prudent,  or  to  put  in  process  (as  by  chas- 
tisement and  training)  of  becoming  prudent  or 
discreet.  Why,  the  doctor's  own  examples  con- 
fute him !  In  every  instance  which  he  has  pro- 
duced the  verb  with  zo  affixed  falls  short  of  what  is 
denoted  by  the  primitive  word, — at  any  rate,  does 
not  exceed  it. 

But,  says  Dr.  Fuller,  "Dr.  Person,  the  first  Greek 
scholar  England  has  ever  produced,  regarded  bap- 


48  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

tizo  as  more  emphatical  thau  bapto,"  (p.  13.)  Now, 
England  had  Greek  scholars  before  she  had  Dr. 
Porson,  though  she  may  never  have  had  any- 
superior  to  him  in  Greek  learning.  But  how  does 
Dr.  Fuller  know  that  such  was  Porson's  opinion? 
Not  from  any  thing  which  that  noted  scholar  has 
written;  but  from  an  obscure  tradition  that  he 
once  said  so,  and  that  tradition  given  by  an  author 
who  mentions  it  only  to  question  it !  The  account 
is,  that  a  certain  Mr.  JSTewman  accompanied  an 
acquaintance  in  a  friendly  call  upon  Dr.  Porson 
just  a  few  months  before  his  death;  that  some- 
thing was  said  in  that  interview  about  Greek; 
that  Mr.  Newman,  after  Dr.  Porson's  death,  wrote 
a  letter  to  some  unknown  individual,  which  letter, 
in  some  unknown  way,  was  put  into  the  hands 
of  Mr.  Carson,  who  speaks  of  it  in  his  book  on 
baptism,  whence  Dr.  Fuller  derived  it;  and  that  it  is 
said,  in  said  letter,  that  Dr.  Porson  said,  "  if  there 
be  a  difference  [between  haptizo  and  hapto]  he 
should  take  the  former  to  be  the  strongest." 
This  is  the  whole  story.  Of  what  account  is  it? 
Not  a  judge  in  the  laud  would  admit  it  as  evidence 
even  in  a  cause  involving  no  more  than  dollars 
and  cents;  and  shall  it  be  admitted  on  a  question 
involving  eternal  consequences  ?  However,  if 
Dr.  Fuller's  case  needs  it,  let  him  have  it.  It  is 
enough  for  us  that  3Ir.  Carson,  from  whom  he  gets 
it,  views  it  with  suspicion,  disputes  the  position 
which  it  is  now  quoted  to  sustain,  and  lays  down 
the  doctrine  in  its  very  face  that  ^Hhe  derivative 
cannot  go  beyond  its  primitive,"  (p.  23.)  At  best, 
the  alleged  opinion  of  Porson  is  given  hypotheti- 


THE   ADDITION   OP   ZO.  49 

cally.  He  says,  "  If  there  be  a  difference."  The 
very  language  intimates  doubt  as  to  whether  hap- 
tizo  does  not  mean  just  the  same  as  hapto.  And,  if 
Dr.  Porson  could  not  satisfy  himself  of  any  "  pecu- 
liar significancy"  in  zo,  we  need  fear  nothing  dis- 
astrous to  our  argument  from  that  quarter. 

But  if  Dr.  Fuller's  theory  concerning  zo,  as  he 
has  defined  it,  were  even  true,  it  can  prove  no- 
thing to  fix  immersion  upon  baptizo  as  its  exclusive 
meaning.  He  says  that  it  "enforces,"  "trans- 
fers," "performs  upon  another,"  what  the  primi- 
tive verb  signifies.  The  meaning  must  therefore, 
on  his  own  showing,  be  in  the  primitive  verb  be- 
fore in  can  be  transferred  or  enforced;  and  it 
must  enforce  and  transfer  at  the  same  time  the 
whole  meaning  of  the  primitive  verb.  If  the 
primitive  verb  means  to  sprinkle  as  well  as  dip,  to 
wash,  wet,  moisten,  and  bedew  as  well  as  to  immerse, 
the  addition  of  zo  must  perform  the  same  office  for 
the  one  as  for  the  other.  All  this  is  plain  and 
clear,  although  Dr.  Fuller  does  not  seem  to  have 
observed  it. 

Now,  we  have  shown  from  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  Daniel  that  there  is  a  bapto  which  signifies 
the  gentle  moistening  of  an  exposed  body  by  the 
falling  dew.  We  have  shown  from  the  same  ver- 
sion of  Leviticus  that  there  is  a  bapto  which 
denotes  the  smearing  of  a  living  bird,  scarlet,  and 
hyssop  in  the  blood  of  one  bird.  We  have  shown 
from  Arrian  and  iElian  that  there  is  a  bapto  which 
designates  the  coloring  of  the  hair.  We  have 
shown  from  ^schylus  and  Hippocrates  that  there 
IS  a  bapto  which  expresses  the  staining  of  a  gar- 

6 


50  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

ment  by  oozing  blood  or  a  dropping  liquid.  Wo 
have  shown  from  the  poem  ascribed  to  Homer 
that  there  is  a  bapto  which  signifies  the  slight 
tinging  of  a  lake  by  the  blood  of  a  frog  or  mouse; 
and  we  have  shown  from  the  Apocalypse  that 
there  is  a  bapto  which  denotes  the  blood-stains 
upon  the  garments  of  a  conquering  warrior.  We 
have  also  produced  a  half-score  of  the  best  lexicog- 
raphers and  the  statements  of  other  learned 
men,  and  the  admission  of  Carson  himself,  in 
support  of  the  fact  that  these  are,  and  have  been 
for  ages,  among  the  accepted  and  acknowledged 
significations  of  bapto.  Let  Dr.  Fuller,  then,  apply 
zos  by  the  cart-load,  and  transfer,  enforce,  and 
perform  upon  another  what  is  expressed  in  the 
primitive  verb,  until  the  day  of  doom,  still  baptizo 
refuses  to  be  tied  down  to  "immersion  and  no- 
thing else." 

And  when  we  come  to  apply  what  is  further  in 
evidence, —  that  there  are  multitudes  of  Greek 
verbs  ending  in  zo  which  denote  acts  or  conditions 
only  slightly  tending  or  imperfectly  approxi- 
mating to  the  thing  expressed  in  the  primitive 
word, —  the  case  becomes  inevitable  and  certain 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  mere  addition  of  zo  to 
confine  the  import  of  baptizo  exclusively  to  im- 
mersion. 

Let  the  reader  now  cast  his  thoughts  back  over 
the  ground  which  we  have  traversed,  and  ask 
himself  whether  he  can  find  room  for  the  feeblest 
probability  that  Christ's  command  to  baptize  is 
"a  command  to  immerse  and  nothing  else"? 
Having  complied  with  this  request,  and  answered 


THE   QUESTION    OF   DIVERS   SIGNIFICATIONS.      51 

this    question,   the  way  is   open  to  pursue   our 
doctor's  "  argument," — 

"  the  rarest  argument  of  wonder 
That  hath  shot  out  in  our  later  times." 


CHAPTEE  V. 

THE   QUESTION   OP   DIVERS   SIGNIFICATIONS. 

For  all  that  we  have  thus  far  learned,  the  word 
baptizo,  which  is  the  word  in  dispute  in  this  con- 
troversy, so  far  from  meaning  total  immersion  and 
nothing  else,  means  also  to  wash,  cleanse,  wet, 
moisten,  bedew,  and  even  to  sprinkle.  We  have 
established  all  these  meanings  of  bapto.  We  have 
shown  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  addition  of  20 
or  izo  to  augment  these  meanings  We  have  also 
shown  that  there  are  many  Greek  verbs,  of  which 
baptizo  may  be  one,  which  are  so  modified,  limited, 
and  diminished  by  the  addition  of  zo  as  to  indicate 
an  act  or  condition  only  approximating  to  that 
signified  in  the  primitive  word.  It  hence  follows 
that  baptizo  means  about  the  same  as  bapto  ;  that, 
as  bapto  means  to  wash,  cleanse,  wet,  moisten,  and 
bedew,  so  baptizo  means  to  wash,  cleanse,  wet, 
moisten,  and  bedew,  or  something  approximative 
to  what  these  words  import. 

But  Dr.  Fuller  insists  that  baptizo  certainly  does 
mean  immersion,  and  that  a  word  cannot  have  more 


52  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

than  one  meaning.  "The  assertion,"  says  he, 
"that  baptizo  has  three  diflferent  meanings  only 
proves  how  strangely  controversy  can  blind  the 
mind  to  the  plainest  things.  To  say  that  a  word 
means  three  distinct  things  is  to  say  that  it  means 
neither  of  them.  And  this  is  true  of  the  most 
general  words.  The  puerilities  of  which  men  are 
guilty  on  this  plain  matter  are  surprising."  (P.  14.) 

A  "plain  matter"  it  certainly  is;  and  how  any 
sane,  fair  man  can  thus  contradict  so  plain  a 
matter  as  that  a  word  may  have  more  than  one 
signification,  we  cannot  understand.  Dr.  Fuller 
knows — he  must  know — he  cannot  read  ten  lines 
in  any  dictionary  in  any  language  without  having 
the  testimony  before  him — that  there  are  words 
every  one  of  which  has  various  shades  of  significa- 
tion and  very  different  meanings.  He  has  told  us 
that  "no  one  ought  to  substitute  for  proof  his  own 
assertion."  And  yet  we  have  here,  as  an  essential 
link  in  his  "  argument,"  nothing  but  assertion, — 
assertion  unaccompanied  with  the  merest  shadow 
of  proof,  and  as  far  from  truth  as  heaven  is  from 
earth.  It  seems  like  pedantry  and  puerility  to 
reply  to  an  error  so  palpable  and  egregious  as  that 
which  he  has  here  broached.  But  we  are  some- 
times called  on  to  prove  that  two  and  two  make 
four.  "We  will  therefore  proceed  to  show  by 
abundant  evidence  that  it  is  one  of  the  commonest 
things  in  language  for  a  word  to  be  used  in  dif- 
ferent and  even  opposite  meanings. 

We  have  before  us  a  book  by  Eoget,  called 
"  Thesaurus  of  English  Words,"  edited  by  Dr.  Bar- 
nas  Sears,  who  commends  it  as  "justly  held  in 


THE   QUESTION   OF   DIVERS   SIGNIFICATIONS.       53 

high  estinijiation  both  in  England  and  America." 
In  this  book,  Eoget  says,  "The  most  cursory- 
glance  over  the  pages  of  a  dictionary  will  show 
that  a  great  number  of  words  are  used  in  various 
senses,  sometimes  distinguished  by  slight  shades  of 
difference,  but  often  diverging  widely  from  their 
primary  signification,  and  even,  in  some  cases, 
bearing  no  perceptible  relation.  It  may  even 
happen  that  the  very  same  word  has  two  signifi- 
cations quite  opposite  to  one  another."  (P.  23.) 
This  author  refers  for  examples  to  such  words  as 
impugn,  which  sometimes  means  to  assail  and 
sometimes  to  defend;  ravel,  sometimes  to  entangle, 
sometimes  to  disentangle;  priceless,  invaluable,  or 
of  no  value;  nervous,  strong,  or  at  other  times 
weak  or  feeble.  Professor  Stuart's  translation  of 
Ernesti  says  that  "usage  has  gradually  assigned 
many  meanings  to  the  same  word."  And  Professor 
Curtis,  a  Baptist,  in  his  recent  book  in  favor  of 
"Baptist  principles,"  says,  ''Almost  every  word  has 
several  significations,"  (p.  145.)  And  all  this  is  true 
of  words  in  all  languages. 

In  Hebrew,  bara  means  to  create,  to  fatten,  and 
to  cut  off, — three  different  significations;  and  barak 
means  both  to  bless  and  to  curse. 

In  Greek,  lego  means  to  speak,  to  choose,  to 
reckon  up,  and  to  lie  down  to  rest, — at  least  three 
unrelated  things;  eirgo  means  both  to  include  and 
to  exclude;  and  ballo,  according  to  Schrevelius,  has 
seventeen  meanings. 

In  Arabic,  faraka  means  to  separate,  withdraw, 
lay  open,  cast  out,  immerse, — not  less  than  four 
things. 

5* 


54  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

The  Eussian  word  uberayu  means  ^o  put  in 
order,  mow,  reap,  and  to  dress  the  hair, — three  or 
more  different  significations. 

The  Chaldee  word  barak  means  to  bless,  salute, 
bend  the  knee,  dig,  plow,  and  to  set  slips  for  pro-. 
pagation, — certainly  very  diverse  operations. 

The  Italian  word  parare  means  to  prepare,  gar- 
nish, parry,  repair,  and  to  stop  a  horse, — five 
significations. 

The  Dutch  word  heeten  means  to  heat,  to  name, 
and  to  command, — certainly  very  different  things. 

The  German  word  vermessen  means  to  measure, 
to  measure  wrong,  to  dare,  to  arrogate,  to  swear 
or  protest  with  solemn  asseverations,  and  to  profess 
with  high  and  boasting  words.  What  diversity 
of  import! 

The  Spanish  word  parar  means  to  prepare,  to 
stop,  detain,  prevent,  to  end,  to  treat  or  use  ill, 
and  to  stake  at  cards, — at  least  five  diverse  things. 

The  Latin  euro  means  to  take  care  of,  to  provide, 
to  refresh  one's  self  with  meat,  to  cook  meat,  to 
bring  to  pass,  to  command,  to  pay  homage  to,  to 
cure,  to  expiate  or  atone.     "What  variety ! 

In  French,  tirer  means  to  draw,  to  free  or  rid 
from,  to  reap,  to  deduce,  to  extract,  to  stretch, 
and  to  shoot;  and  louer  means  to  hire,  to  lease,  to 
praise,  to  applaud, — all  things  very  different. 

And  in  English  spring  means  a  leap,  a  part  of  a 
watch,  one  of  the  seasons,  and  a  fountain  of 
water, — four  wholly  different  things;  cleave  means 
to  adhere  and  to  divide;  and  Webster  assigns  to 
the  word  turn  thirty  transitive  and  twenty  in- 
transitive significations! 


THE   QUESTION   OF   DIVERS   SIGNIFICATIONS.      55 

Multitudes  of  other  words,  with  similar  diversity 
of  signification  belonging  to  each,  might  be  pro- 
duced with  the  greatest  ease.  And  yet,  according 
to  Dr.  Fuller,  it  is  "puerility"  and  "folly"  to  assert 
that  a  word  can  have  more  than  one  meaning! 
Wondrous  linguistic  philosopher !  Is  it  not  amazing 
that  any  one  should  be  so  blind  and  reckless  "in  a 
matter  of  so  much  moment  as  obedience  to  Jesus 
Christ"?  No,  no,  Dr.  Fuller;  whatever  may  be 
your  a  priori  impressions,  and  however  much  your 
cause  may  demand  your  extraordinary  announce- 
ment to  the  contrary,  words  may  and  do  have 
various  and  even  opposite  meanings.  By  denying 
this,  you  make  war  upon  the  plainest  truth,  con- 
tradict the  sternest  facts,  and  put  yourself  in  a 
position  before  the  world  which  calls  for  pity. 
And,  if  it  is  on  this  that  you  rely  to  confine  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  to  total  immersion,  your  cause 
is  gone  beyond  recovery. 

But  this  is  not  the  end  of  our  doctor's  trimming 
up  of  all  words  to  one  signification.  He  had  some 
words  before  him,  when  he  wrote  this  part  of  his 
book,  which  so  palpably  mean  different  things, 
that  he  must  needs  resort  to  some  further  and 
equally  extraordinary  invention  to  meet  the  diffi- 
culty. "\Ye  are  referred,"  says  he,  "to  the  word 
spring,  as  meaning  a  leap,  and  a  part  of  a  watch, 
and  one  of  the  seasons,  and  a  fountain  of  water. 
A  schoolboy,  however,  sees  that  these  are  different 
words,  though  similarly  spelt."  (P.  14.)  Hear,  ye 
sages,  and  learn  wisdom!  Words  "similarly 
spelt,"  composed  of  exactly  the  same  letters,  pro- 
nounced the  same,  belonging  to  the  same  language. 


56  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

identical  in  every  mark  they  bear,  yet  altogether 
"different,"  and  "a  schoolboy  sees  it"!!  Same- 
ness, then,  is  no  more  sameness;  and  the  four 
words  spring,  spring,  spring,  and  spring  are  hardly 
to  be  recognized  any  more  as  members  of  the 
same  family,  much  less  to  be  confounded  as  one, 
if  ever  we  would  understand  the  commands  of 
Jesus,  or  be  sure  that  we  have  obeyed  them! 
But,  as  our  author  remarks,  it  "  only  proves  how 
strangely  controversy  can  blind  the  mind  to  the 
plainest  things." 

Suppose,  however,  that  it  were  true,  that  words 
orthographic  ally  alike  are  different  words:  will 
that  fix  immersion  as  the  meaning  of  the  haptizo 
used  in  the  Savior's  command?  Not  at  all.  It 
only  places  the  question  one  remove  further  back. 
Admit  that  Dr.  Fuller  is  right  in  this  particular, 
it  then  devolves  upon  him  to  prove  that  this  is  the 
haptizo  which  means  to  immerse,  and  not  one  of 
those  other  baptizos  which  mean  to  wash,  cleanse, 
purify,  wet,  moisten,  and  bedew.  Does  he  prove 
this?  No.  Does  he  attempt  to  prove  it?  No. 
All  he  has  to  say  upon  the  subject  is,  "a  school- 
boy sees  it;"  when  it  is  certain  that  no  schoolboy 
or  schoolman,  from  the  time  of  the  institution  of 
schools,  ever  did  or  ever  will  see  it. 

Thus  far,  then,  our  position  remains  firm,  that 
haptizo,  as  bapto,  so  far  from  meaning  immersion 
only,  means  also  to  wash  cleanse,  wet,  moisten, 
bedew. 


BAPTIZO— THE  LEXICONS.  57 


CHAPTEK  VI. 

BAPTIZO — THE   LEXICONS. 

We  come  now  to  the  word  haptizo  itself.  Mr. 
Carson  maintains  that  "it  always  signifies  to  dip, — 
never  expressing  any  thing  but  mode."  Dr.  Fuller 
takes  much  the  same  ground.  '' Baptizo,"  says  he, 
"alwaj'S  denotes  a  total  immersion.  .  .  .  The  word, 
I  repeat  it,  means  nothing  but  immerse.  .  .  .  The 
■word  haptizo  has  but  one  meaning,  and  always 
signifies  immerse."  (Pp.  19,  45.)  This  is  the  common 
Baptist  doctrine  from  Dan  to  Beersheba.  If  this 
fails,  one  great  branch  of  their  system — the  right 
arm  of  their  strength — is  gone. 

We  have  already  done  something  towards  ascer- 
taining what  is  the  real  meaning  of  haptizo.  It 
has  been  shown  that  hapto  means  ivashing,  cleansing, 
wetting,  and  moistening,  as  well  as  immersion ;  that 
the  addition  of  zo  or  izo  cannot  augment,  but 
rather  diminishes,  the  import  of  the  word  to  which 
it  is  afl&xed;  and  hence  that  hapto  with  zo,  or 
haptizo,  must  also  mean  to  wet,  loash,  cleanse,  and 
moisten,  whether  by  the  application  of  the  object 
to  the  element  or  by  the  application  of  the  ele- 
ment to  the  object.  The  reader  is  therefore  in  a 
position  to  anticipate  what  we  are  about  to  brini^ 
forward  in  the  sequel.     We  now  engage  to  pr»-^ 


58  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

duce  proof  upon  proof,  the  clearest  and  the  most 
invincible,  and  to  show  and  establish,  against  Mr. 
Carson,  Dr.  Fuller,  Mt.  Campbell,  and  the  whole 
tribe  of  Baptists,  that  such  is  the  true  scope  and 
meaning  of  the  word  baptizo. 

Our  first  appeal  is  to  the  lexicographers. 

It  is  a  little  surprising  that  Dr.  Fuller  has 
wholly  omitted  and  studiously  avoided  this  source 
of  testimony.  Campbell  concedes  that  the  lexi- 
cographers are  "  the  most  learned  and  most  compe- 
tent witnesses  in  the  case  in  the  world."  And  it  is 
evident,  upon  the  very  first  thought,  that  such  is 
the  fact.  The  only  reason  we  can  see  why  Dr. 
Fuller  has  so  strangely  passed  by  these  "most  com- 
petent witnesses  in  the  world"  is,  that  he  felt  his 
cause  in  peril  and  hopeless  in  case  their  testimony 
should  be  taken.  Though  he  has  not  said  in  words, 
he  has  said  in  the  manner  in  which  he  has  con- 
ducted his  argument,  as  his  great  light  of  Tubber- 
more  said  before  him,  "7  have  all  the  lexicogra- 
phers and  commentators  against  me."*  (See  Carson 
on  Baptism,  p.  55.)  And  yet  Carson  admits  "that 
lexicons  are  an  authority.  Indeed,"  says  he,  "I 
should  consider  it  the  most  unreasonable  skepti- 


*  Dr.  Fuller  says  (p.  18)  that  people  garble  and  misrepresent  Car- 
son's language  when  they  so  quote  him.  We  therefore  give  the 
entire  passage,  that  our  readers  may  judge  for  themselves.  Carson 
says,  "My  position  is,  that  baptizo  always  signifies  to  dip, — never 
expressing  any  thing  but  mode.  Note,  as  I  have  all  the  lexicogra- 
phers and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the  authority  of  lexicons. 
Many  will  be  startled  at  the  idea  of  re/using  to  submit  to  the  unani- 
mous authority  of  lexicons,  as  an  instance  of  the  basest  skepticism." 


BAPTIZO — THE   LEXICONS.  59 

cism  to  deny  that  a  word  has  a  meaning  which 
all  lexicons  give  as  a  primary  meaning/'  (p.  56.) 
But,  if  it  is  "unreasonable  skepticism"  to  rule  out 
the  testimony  of  lexicographers  on  one  meaning 
of  a  word,  how  can  it  be  less  reprehensible  to  rule 
out  their  testimony  as  to  other  meanings?  "We 
must  take  their  whole  testimony  or  none;  else  we 
contradict  one  of  the  plainest  laws  of  evidence, 
which  Dr.  Fuller  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have 
forgotten.  We  certainly  do  most  strenuously  pro- 
test against  this  partial  and  unwarrantable  dealing 
with  "  the  most  competent  witnesses  in  the  world" 
upon  a  matter  so  momentous  as  obedience  to 
Christ.  We  therefore  proceed  to  take  the  testi- 
mony of  the  lexicographers. 

The  first  we  produce  is  Scapula,  who  published 
his  Greek  Lexicon  almost  three  hundred  years 
ago.  He  defines  "baptizo,  mergo,  seu  immergo; 
item  submergo,  obruo  aqua;  item  abluo,  lavo, 
(Mark  vii.,  Luke  xi.;)"  which,  being  interpreted, 
means  "to  dip,  or  to  immerse;  also  to  submerge,  to 
overwhelm  with  water;  also,  to  cleanse,  to  wash." 
He  also  defines  baptismos,  mersio,  lotio,  ablutio, — 
"dipping,  washing,  cleansing." 

2.  Henry  Stephens,  (died  1598,)  pronounced  one 
of  the  best  Grecians  of  his  time,  defines  "  baptizo, 
mergo,  seu  immergo,  submergo,  obruo  aqua;  abluo, 
lavo ;"  to  dip,  or  immerse,  submerge,  overwhelm 
with  water;  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

3.  Cornelius  Schrevelius,  a  laborious  critic,  (died 
1667,)  defines  ^'baptizo,  mergo,  abluo,  lavo;"  to 
dip,  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

4.  Robertson's  Thesaurus,  one  of  the  most  accu- 


60  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

rate  of  dictionaries,  printed  1676,  defines  baptizo 
by  only  two  words,  mergo  and  lavo;  to  dip,  to  wash. 

5.  John  G.  Suicer,  in  his  Thesaurus,  published 
1683,  defines  "  baptizo,  mergo,  immergo,  submergo, 
aqua  obruo;  abluo,  lavo;"  to  dip,  immerse,  sub- 
merge, overwhelm  with  water ;  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

6.  Hedericus,  whose  Lexicon  was  first  published 
in  1722,  gives  "  baptizo,  mergo,  immergo,  aqua 
obruo ;  abluo,  lavo ;  baptizo,  significatu  sacro ;"  to 
dip,  immerse,  overwhelm  with  water ;  to  cleanse,  to 
wash;  to  baptize  in  a  sacred  sense. 

7.  Schoetgen,  in  his  Lexicon,  1765,  gives  "baptizo, 
mergo,  immergo;"  to  dip,  to  immerse;  "in  Mark 
and  Luke,  abluo,  lavo;  largiter  profundo;"  to 
cleanse,  to  wash;  to  pour  profusely  upon. 

8.  Bretschneider,  considered  one  of  the  most 
thorough  critics  on  the  New  Testament,  defines 
"baptizo,  propriae,  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo; 
deinde  lavo,  abluo  simplicitur;  medium,  etc.,  lavo 
me,  abluo  me ;"  properly,  often  to  dip  into,  often  to 
wash;  then  to  wash,  simply  to  cleanse;  in  the  middle 
voice,  I  wash  or  cleanse  myself. 

9.  The  Greek  Clavis  of  Stokius,  published  more 
than  one  hundred  years  ago,  defines  "  baptizo,  pro- 
pine,  est  immergere  ac  intingere  in  aquam;  tropice, 
per  metalepsin,  est  lavire,  abluere ;"  properly,  it  is 
to  immerse  or  dip  into  water;  tropically,  by  meta- 
lepsis,  to  wash,  to  cleanse.  And,  lest  an  improper 
impression  should  here  be  made  by  the  circum- 
stance that  Stokius  classes  wash  and  cleanse  among 
the  tropical  meanings  of  baptizo,  we  will  simply 
refer  to  the  fact  that  Ernesti  states  it  as  one  of  the 
commonest  things  in  language  for  those  meanings 


BAPTIZO — THE   LEXICONS.  61 

of  words  which  were  originally  only  secondary 
and  tropical  to  become  the  proper  and  best-under- 
stood meanings.  And  if  we  were  to  admit  that, 
strictly  and  technically,  haptizo  only  secondarily 
means  to  wash  and  cleanse,  Mr.  Carson  is  authority 
that  secondary  meanings  "are  as  literal  as  the 
primary  meaning,"  (p.  46,)  and  hence  necessarily 
as  much  a  part  of  the  proper  import  of  a  word  as 
any  meaning  can  be. 

10.  Schleusner,  a  learned  theologian  and  critic, 
gives  ^^  haptizo,  proprie,  immergo  ac  intingo,  in 
aquam  mergo.  In  hoc  autem  significatione  nun- 
quam  in  Nov.  Test.,  sed,  abluo,  lavo,  aqua  purgo;" 
properly,  to  immerse  as  to  dye,  to  dip  into  water. 
Jn  this  sense,  however,  it  is  never  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  in  the  sense  to  cleanse,  to  wash,  to 
purify  with  water. 

11.  Parkhurst  enumerates  dip  and  immerse  among 
his  definitions  of  haptizo,  but,  with  Schleusner, 
holds  that  "  in  the  New  Testament  it  occurs  not 
strictly  in  this  sense,  unless  so  far  as  this  is 
included  in  washing."  He  defines  it,  "to  immerse 
or  wash  with  water  in  token  of  purification." 

12.  Robinson  gives  its  classic  use  in  the  sense  of 
dip,  immerse,  sink,  &c. ;  but,  as  a  New  Testament 
word,  he  confines  its  meaning  to  washing,  cleansing, 
bathing,  and  the  performance  of  ablution. 

13.  Ewing's  Greek  Lexicon  thus  classifies  its 
meanings  : — "1.  I  plunge  or  sink  completely  under 
water.  2.  I  cover  partially  with  water.  3.  I  over- 
whelm or  cover  with  water  by  rushing,  flowing,  or 
pouring  upon.  4.  I  drench  or  impregnate  with 
liquor  by  a£fusion ;  I  pour  abundantly  upon,  so  as 

e 


C2  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

to  wet  thoroughly;  I  infuse.  5.  I  oppress  or  over- 
whelm by  bringing  burdens,  afflictions,  or  distress 
upon.  6.  I  wash,  in  general.  7.  /  wash  for  the 
special  purpose  of  symbolical,  ritual,  or  ceremonial 
purification.  8.  I  administer  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  baptism ;  I  baptize." 

14.  Wahl  defines  it,  "first,  to  wash,  to  perform 
ablution,  to  cleanse;  secondly,  to  immerse,"  &c. 

15.  Greenfield  defines  its  scriptural  signification, 
"  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  cleanse,"  &c. 

16.  Pickering  renders  it,  "to  dip,  to  immerse,  to 
sink,  to  overwhelm,  to  wet,  to  wash,  to  cleanse." 

17.  Dunbar,  "to  dip,  to  immerse,  to  sink,  to 
soak,  to  wash." 

18.  Liddell  and  Scott,  "to  dip  repeatedly,  to  dip 
under,  to  bathe,  to  wet,  to  pour  upon,  to  drench,  to 
overwhelm." 

19.  Flacius,  (Clavis  Scripturse,)  "  immergo,  abluo, 
lavo ;"  to  immerse,  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

20.  Grove,  "  to  dip,  immerse,  wash,  cleanse,  purify, 
depress,  humble,  overwhelm,  to  icash  one's  self,  to 
bathe." 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  call  any  more  wit- 
nesses of  this  class.  We  have  others  within  reach; 
but  twenty  of  the  great  masters  of  Greek  lexi- 
cography, all  unanimously  testifying  to  precisely 
the  same  things,  must  be  sufficient  to  settle  the 
matter  so  far  as  respects  the  dictionaries. 

Let  us  then  endeavor  to  realize,  digest,  and 
bring  fully  before  our  minds  what  these  witnesses 
have  deposed. 

In  the  first  place,  every  man  of  them,  from  first 
to  last;  without  the  least  faltering,  hesitation,  or 


BAPTIZO — THE  LEXICONS.  63 

equivocation,  declares  and  records  that  the  general 
signification  of  wetting,  moistening,  or  washing,  no 
matter  how  accomplished,  is  included  in  the  loord 
baptize.  This  is  one  point  which  stands  out  against 
the  Baptist  world  like  a  continent  against  the  sea. 
They  may  rave  and  labor  and  dash  upon  it  with 
all  their  strength,  but  they  can  neither  shake  nor 
surmount  it.  There  it  is.  No  floods  can  destroy 
it.     No  hand  can  blot  it  out. 

In  the  second  place,  six  or  eight  of  these  wit- 
nesses clearly  assert  that,  in  the  Ncav  Testament, 
the  general  signification  of  wetting,  moistening, 
purifying,  or  washing,  no  matter  how  accom- 
plished, is  the  most  inherent,  original,  and  primary 
meaning  of  baptizo.  Here,  again,  is  a  mountain  of 
strength  for  our  cause. 

In  the  third  place,  a  number  of  these  witnesses, 
including  Eobertson,  Schrevelius,  Bretschneider, 
do  not  give  the  distinctive  idea  of  a  total  immersion 
as  at  all  entering  into  the  meaning  of  baptizo. 
Either,  then,  these  men  missed  the  meaning  of  this 
word  altogether,  or  it  means  something  else  than 
a  mere  modal  and  entire  immersion.  There  is  no 
escape  from  this  alternative. 

In  the  fourth  place,  nearly  one-half  of  those 
witnesses  who  give  immersion  as  one  of  the  signi- 
fications of  baptizo  assign  it  only  the  second  place, 
and  give  dip  as  a  more  literal  and  inherent  meaning 
of  this  word.  Dip  may  sometimes  mean  a  total 
immersion,  but  this  is  not  the  burden  of  its  import. 
Webster  gives  "to  baptize  by  immersion"  as  its 
sixth  and  remotest  signification.  A  sudden,  quick, 
partial  touching  to  a  fluid  is  its  most  direct  and 


64  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

central  meaning.  A  swallow  sporting  over  a  lake, 
and  now  and  then  touching  his  soft  breast  to  its 
placid  surface,  dips,  but  is  not  immersed.  A  writer 
dips  his  pen  in  the  ink,  but  he  does  not  totally 
immerse  it;  he  only  touches  the  fluid  with  its 
extreme  points.  Nay,  dip  sometimes  means  simply 
to  wet  or  moisten.  Johnson  and  Webster  both  give 
these  words  as  definitions  of  dip.     Milton  says, 

"  a  cold  shuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  over." 

He  meant,  of  course,  nothing  more  than  being 
moistened  or  wetted  by  the  dew.  Mr.  Carson  also 
agrees  that  it  would  be  not  only  correct,  but 
beautiful  and  elegant,  to  say  of  a  man  who  had 
been  caught  in  a  shower  of  rain,  he  got  a  dipping, 
(p.  38.)  And,  if  mergo  and  dip  meant  the  same  total 
modal  immersion  signified  by  immergo  and  immerse, 
it  would  be  difiicult  to  understand  why  these 
learned  men  should  give  these  words  as  significant 
of  a  still  further  meaning.  If  dip,  then,  is  the  most 
inherent  and  original  sense  of  baptizo,  and  if  the 
main  stress  of  the  word  dip  runs  on  mere  partial 
submersions,  gentle  or  quick  contacts  with  a  fluid, 
wettings  and  moistenings  as  from  dew  or  falling 
rain,  we  here  spring  a  mine  under  the  Baptist 
theory  which  carries  it  into  absolute  ruin. 

In  the  fifth  place,  all  those  witnesses  who  speak 
of  the  specific  New  Testament  or  scriptural  use  of 
the  word  baptizo  to  a  man  give  to  it  the  general 
signification  of  wetting,  washing,  purifying,  or 
cleansing,  without  regard  to  mode.  Scapula  refers 
to  Mark  and  Luke,  and  gives  it  abluo,  lavo, — to 
cleanse,  to  wash.    Stephens  follows  with  the  same. 


BAPTIZO — THE   LEXICONS.  65 

Bretschneider  gives  it,  "often  to  dip,  often  to  wash ; 
then  simply  to  wash,  cleanse."  Stokius  gives  the 
sacred  sense  to  "wash  and  cleanse."  Schleusner 
and  Parkhurst  say  that  it  does  not  occur  in  the 
New  Testament  strictly  in  the  sense  of  immerse, 
except  so  far  as  this  is  included  in  washing.  Robin- 
son gives  its  scriptural  meaning,  "to  wash,  to 
cleanse  by  washing."  Flacius  gives  oMuo,  lavo, — 
to  cleanse,  to  wash.  And  Ewing,  Schoetgen,  Green- 
field, and  all,  take  the  same  ground  and  state  the 
same  thing.  Whatever,  then,  may  be  the  meaning 
of  this  word  in  the  old  classic  Greek  authors,  these 
men,  with  one  accord,  assert  that  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  only  book  we  are  concerned  with  in  this 
controversy,  it  means  to  wash,  cleanse,  purify,  in 
any  way,  without  regard  to  the  particular  mode 
contended  for  by  our  Baptist  friends. 

We  will  yet  call  to  the  stand  a  few  native  Greek 
lexicographers  to  testify  on  this  subject.  These 
constitute  a  class  of  witnesses  to  whom  Baptists 
are  very  fond  of  referring.  They  tell  us  that 
"the  native  Greeks  must  understand  their  own 
language  better  than  foreigners;"  and  that  "in 
this  case  the  Greeks  are  unexceptionable  guides." 
Dr.  Fuller  asks,  "Is  the  Greek  language  now 
spoken  by  any  nation?  If  it  be,  why  not  refer 
the  point  to  them,  since  they  must  know  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word?"  (P.  87.)  Very  well:  we  will 
go  to  the  native  Greeks,  and  agree  to  bind  our- 
selves by  the  result.  Will  our  Baptist  friends  be 
honest,  and  bind  themselves  to  the  decision  of  their 
"unexceptionable  guides"  ?  If  not,  let  them  cease 
their  palaver  about  native  Greeks. 


66  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

1.  The  first  of  the  native  Greek  lexicographers 
is  Hesychiiis,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century.  He 
gives  only  bapto,  in  which  he  includes  baptizo;  and 
the  word  by  which  he  defines  its  meaning  is  antleo, 
— to  draw,  or  pump,  or  pour  out  water.  This  is  his 
whole  definition  of  bapto  and  its  derivatives.  Alas ! 
what  has  become  of  "total  immersion  and  nothing 
else''  ? 

2.  Next  in  order  comes  Suidas,  a  man  whose 
mother-tongue  was  Greek,  and  who  "must  have 
known  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word."  He 
lived  in  the  ninth  or  tenth  century.  His  definition 
of  baptizo  is  given  in  the  word  pluno, — in  Latin, 
madefacio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo,  mundo, — to  wet,  to  lave, 
to  wash,  to  cleanse,  to  purify.  "Where  is  dip,  plunge, 
sink,  immerse? 

3.  But  these  are  old  writers :  perhaps  the  present 
Greeks  understand  their  own  language  better  than 
their  fathers.  We  descend,  then,  to  the  nineteenth 
century,  at  the  beginning  of  which  we  find  a  large 
and  complete  lexicon,  compiled  with  great  labor 
and  pains  by  the  learned  Gases,  a  native  Greek, 
whose  valuable  work  holds  somewhat  the  same 
relation  to  the  Greek  language  which  Webster's 
Dictionary  does  to  the  language  of  the  United 
States.  "  It  is  generally  used  by  native  Greeks," 
says  Chapin.  We  turn  to  baptizo,  and  read  his 
definition  of  it.  It  is  in  these  words  :  brecho,  louo, 
antleo, — to  wet,  moisten,  or  bedew;  to  wash,  lave,  or 
bathe;  to  draw,  pump,  or  pour  out  water.  This  is  the 
whole  of  it.     Not  a  word  about  dip,  immerse, 

PLUNGE,  OR  SINK  IS  TO  BE  FOUND  IN  THE  DEFINITION. 


BAPTIZO — THE  CLASSICS.  67 

Our  case,  then,  is  made  out.  The  native  Greeks 
have  spoken,  and  their  words  are  all  for  us. 

"With  such  results  following  an  examination  of 
the  lexicographers,  we  need  not  much  wonder  that 
Dr.  Fuller  so  carefully  avoided  them  in  his  book, 
or  that  Mr.  Carson  began  to  be  troubled  with  fears 
of  being  charged  with  startling  and  base  skep- 
ticism when  he  undertook  to  maintain  that  haptizo 
means  nothing  but  a  modal  and  total  immersion. 
He  did  but  utter  the  truth  when  he  said,  "  I  have 
all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators  against 
me  in  this  opinion." 

But  we  have  other  and  equally  interesting  details 
awaiting  our  attention. 


CHAPTEE  VII. 

BAPTIZO — THE  CLASSICS. 


The  overwhelming  odds  against  the  theory  of 
our  Baptist  friends,  presented  in  our  examinations 
thus  far,  may  render  the  reader  a  little  curious  to 
know  upon  what  they  do  rely  in  the  much  ado 
they  make  about  immersion  as  the  only  baptism. 
The  best  of  their  critics  admits  that  the  best  and 
most  competent  witnesses  on  this  subject  in  the 
world — the  lexicographers — are  against  them.  But 
he  denies  that  the  lexicons  are  "  an  ultimate  au- 
thority," and  appeals  from  them  to  quotations  from 
the  Greek  writers   containing  the  word   haptizo. 


68  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Quite  a  number  of  such  quotations  have  been  col- 
lected by  the  industry  of  writers  on  the  subject, 
from  which  Dr.  Fuller  has  culled  a  parcel  which 
he  presents  as  the  foundation  on  which  he  rests  for 
his  doctrine  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  question.  He  says  he  takes  them  "at  random." 
Mr.  Carson  had  said  the  same  thing  in  presenting 
the  same  passages  before.  How  many  more  have 
expressed  themselves  in  the  same  way,  over  the 
same  passages,  we  cannot  say.  But  it  is  singular 
to  see  these  studied  insinuations  that  no  great 
care  has  been  exercised  to  bring  out  the  utmost 
strength  of  the  case.  It  seems  to  say  that,  after 
all  their  Greek  explorations,  these  writers  are  by 
no  means  satisfied  that  they  have  made  good  their 
assertions.  We  shall  see  presently  that  their 
citations  are  "random"  enough,  especially  when 
viewed  as  the  last  grand  fortress  upon  which  the 
fate  of  the  Baptist  theory  is  staked. 

The  observations  which  we  have  to  make  upon 
these  cited  passages  are  to  this  effect: — 1.  That, 
even  as  far  as  they  go,  they  do  not  show  haptizo  in 
the  one  sense  of  "  immerse  and  nothing  else."  2. 
That,  if  they  did,  they  would  prove  no  more  than 
that  this  is  one  of  the  acceptations  in  which  this 
word  has  been  used  by  certain  writers.  3.  That, 
if  they  were  even  competent  to  settle  the  classic 
Greek  use  of  the  word  in  question,  they  still 
cannot  prove  its  import  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  was  not  written  in  classic  Gi'eek;  and,  4. 
That  there  are  instances  even  of  classic  usage  in 
which  haptizo  must  be  assigned  a  meaning  at  vari- 
ance with  the  Baptist  theory. 


BAPTIZO — THE   CLASSICS.  69 

If  we  can  make  these  points  clear,  we  have 
taken  the  citadel  in  which  the  Baptists  have 
lodged  their  strongest  forces,  and  in  which  their 
greatest  confidence  reposes.  Let  us  see,  then, 
what  is  to  be  said. 

I.  Do  the  instances  of  the  use  of  baptizo,  to  which 
Dr.  Fuller  refers,  give  to  that  word  the  uniform 
sense  of  total  immersion  ?  Do  they  sustain  the 
idea  that  baptism  is  the  application  of  the  subject 
to  the  water?     We  say  they  do  not. 

In  his  first  quotation,  baptizo  is  used  to  denote 
the  setting  of  the  sun  behind  the  western  ocean. 
Is  this  a  case  of  immersion  ?  Then  for  the  candi- 
date to  pass  behind  the  cistern  of  baptismal  water 
is  as  much  an  immersion  as  to  go  into  the  cistern 
and  be  covered  up  by  the  water  in  actual  contact 
with  his  person.  The  sun  surely  never  was  in 
contact  with  the  waters  of  the  sea. 

The  second  we  once  thought  a  case  of  genuine 
immersion,  and  so  stated  in  the  first  edition  of  this 
book;  but,  having  since  seen  the  original,  we  are 
satisfied  that  the  idea  of  immersion  is  not  in  the 
passage.  Dr.  Fuller  gives  only  a  translation,  the 
same  as  that  given  by  Carson,  who  borrowed  it 
from  Gale.  This  current  Baptist  version  reads 
thus : — "  When  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red-hot 
from  the  fire,  and  is  dipped  (baptized)  in  water,  the 
heat,  being  quenched  by  the  peculiar  nature  of  the 
water,  ceases."  This,  to  say  the  least,  is  a  forced 
and  incorrect  translation;  and  that,  too,  in  the  very 
point  in  question.  We  have  the  original  before  us, 
and  know  what  we  are  saying.     The  right  trans- 


70  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

lation  is  this : — "  For  a  mass  of  iron,  heated  to 
redness,  being  drawn  out  by  the  smiths,  is  baptized 
WITH  water,  and  that  which  was  fiery  by  its  own 
nature,  being  quenched  with  water,  ceases  to  be 
BO."  "  Hudati  baptizetai"  does  not  niean  "  dipped  in 
water,"  as  our  Baptist  doctors  tell  us.  Hudati  here 
is  the  dative  of  instrument,  and  can  only  be  ren- 
dered, "with  water."  It  is  used  twice  in  the 
same  form  in  the  same  sentence,  and  can  have 
no  other  translation.  Dipped  with  water,  plunged 
WITH  water,  is  a  syntax  neither  Greek  nor  English. 
Besides,  "amass  of  iron"  which  it  required  "smiths" 
— more  than  one  man — to  draw  out  of  the  fire,  and 
that  "mass"  "heated  to  redness,"  was  not  a  thing 
to  be  dipped,  in  the  sense  of  the  Baptists.  It  was 
baptized  (hudati)  with  water,  not  into  water.  It 
was  not  put  in  a  vessel  filled  with  water,  but  water 
from  a  vessel  was  put  on  it.  There  was  pouring, 
throwing  upon,  but  no  dipping.  The  water  was 
applied  to  the  red-hot  mass,  and  not  the  red-hot  mass 
applied  to  the  water.  It  was  with  water,  not  into 
it.  Baptizo  here  cannot  bo  made  to  mean  im- 
mersion at  all.  Yet  these  are  the  strong  and 
decisive  "  instances"  by  which  Baptists  prove  that 
"baptizo  means  to  immerse  and  nothing  else." 
With  such  liberties  a  man  could  prove  any  thing. 

The  next  four,  eleventh,  thirteenth,  fourteenth, 
fifteenth,  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  twenty-first, 
twenty-eighth,  twenty-ninth,  and  thirtieth  quota- 
tions give  baptizo  to  denote  the  loss  of  vessels  and 
men  at  sea  by  sinking  to  the  bottom.  There  are 
other  instances  of  the  same  kind.  But  if  this 
is  to  be  taken  as  the  sense  which  Baptists  attach 


BAPTIZO THE    CLASSICS.  71 

to  the  word,  and  it  can  have  but  the  one  exact 
meaning,  then  no  man  is  baptized  unless  he  is  sunk 
to  the  bottom  of  the  sea  and  kept  there.  The 
idea  of  emersion,  or  rising  again,  is  here  excluded 
from  haptizo.  Nay,  Dr.  Fuller  boldly  affirms  in 
one  place  that  "  haptizo  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
rising  again."  Then  to  baptize  a  man  is  simply 
to  take  him  under  the  water,  to  the  bottom  of  it, 
and  to  leave  him  there ;  and  it  is  a  violation  of 
divine  command  to  bring  him  up  again.  Christ 
commands  only  the  baptizing,  not  the  fishing  up 
of  what  has  been  sunk ;  and,  if  baptizo  has  but  one 
meaning,  and  that  meaning  is  given  in  these  quo- 
tations, Christ's  command  to  baptize  people  is 
simply  a  command  to  sink  them  to  the  bottom  of 
the  sea, — to  drown  them  ! 

In  the  sixth  instance  baptizo  is  employed  to 
denote  the  dipping  of  a  vessel  in  a  fountain  to 
take  up  water,  or  the  filling  of  a  vessel  with  water 
in  a  fountain.  It  is  not  necessarily  or  even  pro- 
bably a  case  of  total  immei*sion.  It  is  not  common 
in  such  an  operation  to  submerge  the  entire  vessel, 
hand,  handle,  and  all. 

In  the  next  instance  a  crow  is  said  to  "  baptize 
herself"  by  washing  her  head  and  breast  upon  the 
margin  of  a  lake  or  stream.  Most  persons  have 
seen  this  performance.  It  includes  a  slight  dip- 
ping and  splashing,  but  nothing  like  "  a  total  im- 
mersion." 

In  the  eighth,  tenth,  twenty-sixth,  and  forty- 
third  instances  baptizo  is  used  to  signify  the  act 
of  drowning  in  the  waves,  or  of  causing  one  to 
sink  into  the  waters  so  as  to  be  drowned.     But, 


72  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

unless  Christ's  command  to  baptize  is  a  comma i)d 
to  sink  beneath  the  surges  so  as  to  drown  the 
subject,  haptizo  here  and  baptizo  in  the  New 
Testament  differ  in  signification. 

In  the  ninth  quotation  haptizo  is  used  to  denote 
the  dissolving  of  Cupid  in  wine  in  order  to  drink 
him.  Are  we  to  baptize  people  by  making  a 
drinkable  solution  of  them? 

In  the  twelfth  instance  baptizo  denotes  the  sud- 
den and  furious  pouring  forth  of  the  waters  of  the 
overflowing  Nile,  by  which  cattle  are  destroyed. 
Carson's  version  of  the  passage  is,  "  Many  of  the 
land-animals,  [haptizomena,']  immersed  in  the  river, 
perish.''  This  rendering,  as  Wilson  observes,  "is 
grossly  incorrect,  inasmuch  as  the  Greek  says  not 
one  word  about  being  immersed  in  the  river  or  in 
any  portion  of  water  whatever.  Dr.  Carson's 
translation  not  only  assumes  quietly  the  point  in 
debate,  but  invents  for  the  Greek  participle  a  con- 
struction which  is  not  found  in  the  original  or 
necessarily  suggested  by  the  connection."  The  ver- 
sion given  by  Dr.  Fuller  is  not  quite  so  bad,  but 
still  conceals  an  important  element  in  the  idea  of 
the  author.  The  literal  rendering  is  this : — "Many 
of  the  land-animals,  overtaken  by  the  river,  perish, 
\baptizomena,']  being  baptized."  Here  we  have 
clearly  the  river  coming  upon  the  animals,  and  not 
the  animals  thrust  into  the  river.  Baptizo  in  this 
passage  will  bear  the  sense  of  overwhelm,  pouring 
over,  but  not  the  sense  of  dipping  or  immersing. 
It  has  in  it  here  the  idea  of  mode;  and  that  mode 
is  dashing  or  pouring  upon. 

The  eighteenth,  nineteenth,  and  twentieth  in- 


RAPTIZO — THE   CLASSICS.  73 

stances,  which  are  taken  from  Strabo,  give  baptizo 
in  the  sense  of  sinking,  or  being  sunk,  very  much 
as  in  the  case  of  vessels  lost  at  sea. 

The  twenty-second  is  from  Plutarch : — "  Baptize 
yourself  in  the  sea,  and,  sitting  down  on  the 
ground,  remain  all  day."  Dr.  Fuller  gives  it, 
"Plunge  yourself  in  the  sea."  But,  if  a  man  were 
to  plunge  himself  into  the  sea,  he  would  hardly 
find  ground  to  sit  on  all  day.  The  sense  of  bap- 
tizo in  this  passage  plainly  is  to  wash.  It  contains 
not  a  word  about  mode  or  immersion.  Wash 
meets  all  the  wants  of  the  case,  and  also  of  the 
next  respecting  "  the  lake  Copais."  It  is  simply 
xvashing,  with  not  the  slightest  reference  to 
"  plunging"  or  immersion. 

The  next  case  is  a  very  remarkable  one  to  be 
quoted  in  proof  that  baptizo  means  only  total  im- 
mersion. Speaking  of  a  procession  of  marching 
soldiers,  Plutarch  says,  "  In  this  whole  company 
there  was  not  to  be  seen  a  buckler,  a  helmet,  or 
spear,  but,  instead  of  them,  cups,  flagons,  and 
goblets,  baptizing  from  large  vessels  of  wine,  which 
the  soldiers  drank  to  each  other,  some  as  they 
marched  along,  and  others  seated  at  tables."  Dr. 
Fuller  says,  "  baptizing  here  means  dipping." 
Perhaps  it  does,  in  the  sense  in  which  a  man 
touches  a  cup  into  a  fluid  to  take  up  for  drinking. 
But,  considering  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  thing  was  done,  and  the  nature  of  the  vessels 
in  which  we  would  expect  to  find  the  wine  carried 
with  a  moving  army,  we  would  rather  say  it 
means  drawing  in  the  sense  o? pouring  out  into. 

Pliny,  describing  a  bathing  establishment,  speaks 


74  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

of  two  large  basins  projecting  from  the  wall, 
which  he  says  were  ''  large  enough  [mnare]  to 
float  in."  He  calls  these  basins  baptisteria, — from 
which  Dr.  Fuller  concludes  that  baptizo  must  mean 
immerse.  Let  him  consult  Potter's  Antiquities, 
or  Eschenburg's  Manual,  or  Smith's  Classical  Dic- 
tionary, and  he  will  find  that  "the  word  baptiste- 
rium  is  not  a  bath  (Pliny  does  not  so  describe  it) 
large  enough  to  immerse  the  whole  body,  but  a 
vessel  or  labrum  containing  cold  water  for  pouring 
over  the  head."  If  this  quotation,  therefore,  proves 
any  thing  on  this  point,  it  proves  that  baptizo 
relates  to  the  pouring  of  water  or  washing  in 
general. 

We  are  referred  to  yet  a  few  other  examples,  in 
which  baptizo  is  used  to  set  forth  the  results  of 
overstimulation,  the  stupefaction  of  men  by  drunk- 
enness or  sleep;  as  where  it  is  said,  "Bacchus 
baptizes  one  with  sleep  like  that  of  death."  But 
what  can  such  instances  prove  as  to  mode?  By  a 
lively  figure,  we  may  say  a  man  is  immersed  in 
wine;  but  it  is  equally  rhetorical  to  speak  of  him 
as  drenched  with  wine,  overwhelmed  with  intoxica- 
tion. There  is  simply  the  denotation  of  an  eflPect. 
That  effect  is  the  induction  of  a  state  of  stupefac- 
tion or  insensibility.  And  the  idea  clearly  involves 
the  coming  of  the  sleep  upon  the  man  more  than 
the  dipping  or  plunging  of  the  man  into  the 
sleep. 

These  are  the  grand  foundations  upon  which 
Dr.  Fuller  and  his  friends  rely  to  prove  that  "  bapt- 
tizo  means  immerse  and  nothing  else."  Must 
they  not  be  exceedingly  in  want,  to  lean   upon 


BAPTIZO THE    CLASSICS.  75 

such  testimony?  The  sun  passes  behind  the  seas, 
and  it  is  said  to  be  baptized.  Water  is  thrown 
upon  a  mass  of  red-hot  iron,  and  it  is  said  to  be 
baptized.  A  vessel  is  overwhelmed  in  the  sea  by 
the  raging  storm  and  dashing  waves,  or  sunk  to 
the  bottom  to  rise  no  more,  and  it  is  said  to  be 
baptized.  A  man  takes  a  vessel  and  dips  up  from 
a  fountain,  and  that  vessel  is  said  to  be  baptized. 
A  crow  dips  her  head  into  the  margin  of  a  stream 
or  lake  and  splashes  herself  with  her  wings,  and 
she  is  said  to  baptize  herself  A  man  is  held  down 
under  the  water  until  he  drowns,  and  he  is  said  to 
be  baptized.  A  fancied  creature  is  dissolved  in 
wine,  and  it  is  called  baptism.  The  Nile  suddenly 
overflows  and  pours  its  waters  out  over  the  land 
and  overwhelms  certain  animals,  and  they  are 
said  to  be  baptized.  An  individual  sinks  into  a 
lake  or  into  the  mire  of  the  sea,  and  he  is  said  to 
be  baptized.  He  washes  himself,  and  he  is  baptized 
again.  Marching  soldiers  draw  or  pour  out  wine 
as  they  move  along  in  procession,  and  it  is  called 
baptizing.  Pliny  talks  of  large  wash-basins  pro- 
jecting from  the  walls  of  a  bath-house,  and  they 
are  baptizing-implements.  A  drunkard  is  stupefied 
with  rum,  overwhelmed  with  intoxication,  and  he 
is  baptized  with  the  sleep  of  the  debauchee.  And 
this  is  to  prove  to  us  that  baptism  is  a  mere  modal 
word,  signifying  immersion  and  nothing  else !  What 
a  mind  must  he  have  who  can  agree  to  excom- 
municate— ^yea,  and  to  damn — men  upon  such  argu- 
mentation as  this! 

II.  But,  if  these  citations  were  in  themselves  all 


76  TllK    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

that  Baptists  seem  to  think  they  are,  they  would 
be  inadequate  to  settle  the  point  at  issue.  Admit, 
for  argument's  sake,  that  in  every  instance  ad- 
duced haptizo  certainly  means  total  immersion  and 
nothing  else :  could  that  decide  its  meaning  in  the 
ten  thousand  other  cases  in  which  it  has  been 
used?  Take  a  parallel  case  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. The  most  ordinary  thinker  who  reads  at 
all  can  produce  ten  times  as  many  instances  to 
prove  that  the  word  "Zef  means  simply  to  permit. 
But  will  that  prove  that  the  word  let  never  means 
any  thing  but  to  permit?  Certainly  not ;  for  we  can 
demonstrate  from  Shakspearo  and  the  English 
classics  generally  that  let  means  to  hinder  as  well  as 
to  permit.  Again :  we  can  give  more  instances  than 
Dr.  Fuller  alleges  on  baptizo  to  prove  that  in  the 
older  English  classics  the  word  "prevent"  was 
used  only  in  the  sense  of  going  before,  preceding, 
taking  the  advance  of.  But  does  that  settle  the 
meaning  of  prevent  in  modern  English  writing? 
Certainly  not;  for  every  one  knows  that  prevent 
now  means  to  hinder,  to  stop,  to  intercept.  Suppose, 
then,  that  Dr.  Fuller's  quotations  from  the  Gi*eek 
authors  do  give  the  sense  of  total  immersion  to 
baptizo, — which  wo  dispute:  that  proves  only  that 
immersion  was  with  them  a  common  meaning  of 
this  word.  This  no  one  denies;  and  it  is  useless — 
a  work  of  supererogation — for  our  Baptist  friends 
to  be  so  voluminous  in  proof  of  a  universally- 
admitted  point.  But  let  it  be  never  so  well  esta- 
blished that  in  so  and  so  many  cases  of  classic 
usage  bajytizo  signifies  immersion :  that  docs  not 
and  cannot  go  one  jot  to  prove  that  it  nowhere — 


BAPTIZO — THE   CLASSICS.  77 

and  especially  not  in  New  Testament  Greek  — 
means  any  thing  but  immersion. 

Now,  to  prove  that  bapfizo  never  has,  anywhere, 
THOre  than  this  one  meaning  of  total  immersion, 
is  a  much  larger  undertaking  than  our  Baptist 
friends  have  imagined  it  to  be.  It  is  an  attempt 
to  prove  a  negative  in  a  very  wide  field.  It  is 
venturing  to  deny  a  fact  that  has  a  very  ample 
and  unexplored  range  of  probability  in  which  to 
be  verified.  It  is  like  undertaking  to  prove  that 
there  are  no  worlds  in  God's  universe  but  those 
which  astronomers  have  seen,  or  that  no  member 
of  the  human  race  bears  the  name  of  Beelzebub. 
To  do  the  one,  there  must  first  be  a  complete 
exploration  of  creation  up  to  where  it  joins  upon 
nothingness;  and  to  do  the  other,  there  must  first 
be  an  actual  ascertainment  of  what  the  name  of 
every  member  of  the  race  is.  And  so,  when  Dr. 
Fuller  says,  "I  will  prove  the  negative,"  and 
undertakes  to  show  that  baptizo  never  means  any 
thing  but  immerse,  he  obligates  himself  to  go 
through  with  a  demonstration  which  must  forever 
remain  incomplete  and  unsatisfactory  until  he  has 
shown,  by  actual  ascertainment,  what  its  exact 
signification  is  in  every  sentence  in  which  it 
occurs  in  the  whole  round  of  Greek  literature, 
whether  classic  or  otherwise.  So  long  as  any  part 
of  the  field  remains  unexplored,  so  long  must 
there  be  a  proportionate  degree  of  doubt  as  to  the 
correctness  of  any  theory  which  a  few  known 
facts  may  seem  to  warrant.  Has  our  friend,  then, 
made  any  thing  like  a  general,  impartial,  or  ade- 
quate search  into  the  usus  loquendi  of  this  word  if 


78  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

Has  he  seen  and  examined  all  the  various  passages 
in  which  it  occurs?  He  certainly  will  make  no 
such  pretensions.  From  indications  which  we  will 
not  stop  to  point  out,  we  are  constrained  to  believe 
that  he  has  not  examined  in  their  connections  even 
the  tenth  part  of  the  few  passages  which  he  has 
transferred  to  his  pages.  How  ridiculous,  then,  for 
him  to  talk  of  having  proven  total  immersion  to 
be  the  specific  and  exclusive  meaning  of  baptizo! 
And  how  utterly  inadequate  at  best  are  a  few 
classic  quo  ations  to  show  that  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  living  in  another  age  and  country, 
reared  under  other  influences,  and  laboring  to  set 
forth  other  ideas,  must  needs  have  used  this  word 
in  this  particular  and  no  other  sense! 

III.  That  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is 
not  classic  Greek  is  well  known  to  every  scholar. 
There  was  once  a  time  when  some  men  thought 
such  an  admission  detracted  from  the  character  of 
the  Sacred  Writings,  and  attempted  to  establish  the 
contrary.  But  all  their  efforts — some  of  which 
were  very  learned — have  proven  only  gi-and  failures. 
Let  any  one  read  Winer's  Idioms  of  the  Language 
of  the  New  Testament,  or  even  Professor  Stuart's 
Grammar  of  the  New  Testament,  or  compare  any 
good  lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  with  the 
purely  classic  Greek  lexicons,  and  he  will  be  satis- 
fied that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  has 
many  lexical  as  well  as  grammatical  deflections 
from  the  true  Greek  usage.  To  argue  this  point 
would  take  us  too  far  for  this  brief  treatise.     We 


BAl'TIZO THE    CLASSICS.  79 

will  only  quote  a  few  of  the  prominent  authorities 
on  the  subject. 

Ernesti  says,  "We  deny,  without  hesitation, 
that  the  diction  of  the  New  Testament  is  pure 
Greek.  ...  In  many  passages  there  would  arise  an 
absurd  and  ridiculous  meaning  if  they  should  be 
intei-preted  accoi'ding  to  a  pure  Greek  idiom." 
(Pp.  56,  57.) 

Winer  says,  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is 
'*a  Jewish  Greek,  which  native  Greeks  generally 
did  not  understand,  and  therefore  despised;"  that 
"many  Greek  words  are  used  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  with  direct  reference  to  the  Chris- 
tian system,  as  technical  religious  expressions;  so 
that  from  this  arises  an  element  of  diction  pecu- 
liarly Christian;"  and  that  "the  New  Testament 
contains  many  words  not  known  to  the  written 
language  of  the  Greeks,  but  introduced  from  the 
popular  language,  and  even  some  newly  formed." 
(Idioms,  pp.  31,  36,  38.) 

Dr.  G.  Campbell,  a  very  high  authority  with 
Baptists,  says  that  "classical  use,  both  in  Greek 
and  in  Latin,  is  not  only  in  this  study  sometimes 
unavailing,  but  may  even  mislead.  The  sacred 
use  and  the  classical  are  often  very  diiferent."  (On 
the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  p.  58.) 

Davidson  says,  "It  is  almost  superfluous  to  re- 
mark that  the  nature  of  the  New  Testament  diction 
diff'crs  from  the  classical  language  of  Greece.  .  .  . 
When  native  Hebrews  Avere  commissioned  to  write 
about  Christianity  in  the  Greek  tongue,  they  had 
ideas  for  which  that  tongue  furnished  no  appro- 
priate terms.  .  .  .  Hence  it  became  necessary  either 


80  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

to  employ  words  already  existing  in  new  senses, 
or  to  make  entirely  new  ones.  Both  expedients 
were  adopted."  (Bibl.  Crit.  pp.  2,  5,  6.) 

Diodati  of  Naples,  who  has  written  very  learn- 
edly and  powerfully  upon  this  subject,  maintains 
that  the  language  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  "a  Hellenistic  dialect  combining  Greek 
words  with  a  Hebrew  phraseology,"  He  calls  it 
hybrida  lingua,  "a  mongrel  tongue,  the  main  strain 
of  which  was  Greek,  but  so  completely  made  up 
of  foreign  admixtures,  that,  were  all  the  contri- 
butions from  various  quarters  removed,  little  would 
remain."  {Exercitatio  de  Christo  Greece  Loquente, 
translated  by  Dobbin.) 

Seilor,  in  his  Biblical  Hermeneutics,  says, "  Thero 
are  many  Greek  words  which  among  profane 
writers  are  used  in  a  signification  which,  if  not 
altogether  different,  is  at  least  not  precisely  the 
same  with  that  attached  to  them  by  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament."  (P.  379.)  And  it  is  just 
for  this  reason  that  Professor  Stuart  has  remarked 
that  "classical  usage  can  never  be  very  certain  in 
respect  to  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  the  New 
Testament." 

Many  testimonies  to  the  same  effect  might 
be  given  from  Heinsius,  Vorst,  Fisher,  Leusden, 
Sturtzius,  Plank,  Hug,  Eobinson,  and  nearly  all 
the  prominent  New  Testament  critics,  from  the 
days  of  Schleusner  to  the  present.  But  it  is  use- 
less to  occupy  space  with  authorities  to  prove  what 
is  so  plain  and  obvious  to  every  scholar.  The 
reader  may  safely  take  it  as  settled  forever  that 
neither  lexically  nor  grammatically  is  the  Greek  of 


BAPTIZO — THE   CLASSICS.  81 

the  New  Testament  the  same  as  that  of  the  classic 
Greek  authors. 

To  whom,  then,  do  our  Baptist  friends  refer  for 
examples  to  settle  the  New  Testament  sense  of 
the  word  haptizo?  Opening  Dr.  Fuller's  book,  we 
find  the  names  of  his  authors  ranging  as  follows : — 
Orpheus,  Heraclides  Ponticus,  Polybius,  the  Greek 
Scholiasts  on  Euripides  and  Aratus,  Alcibiades, 
Anacreon,  ^sop,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Plutarch,  Pin- 
dar, Strabo,  Ejjictetus,  Lucian,  Josephus,  Philo, — 
all  classic  Grecians,  not  one  of  whom  can  be  ranked 
with  that  school  of  Greek  writers  to  which  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament  belongs.  Though  the  last 
two  were  native  Hebrews,  they  labored  to  write 
in  the  piire  Grecian  style.  "As  to  the  works  of 
Josephus  and  Philo,"  says  Davidson,  "they  afford 
less  aid  in  explaining  the  New  Testament,  because 
they  were  able  (and  ambitious)  to  write  in  a  style 
nearer  that  of  the  later  Greeks  than  what  appears 
in  the  New  Testament."  (Bibl.  Grit.  vol.  ii.  p.  7.) 
"Flavins  Josephus,"  says  Seller,  "labored  to  write 
elegant  Greek,  and  to  imitate  the  Greek  profane 
authors."  (Bibl.  Herm.  p.  373.)  Without  a  single 
exception,  then,  all  these  authors  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  classic  Grecians;  and  how  can  their 
manner  of  using  a  word  settle  the  meaning  of  that 
word  in  Hebraic  Christian  Greek,  which,  according 
to  Diodati,  "differs  from  the  pure  Greek,  both  in 
style  and  phraseology,  more  than  Bruttian  from 
Tuscan,  Gascon  from  Parisian,  and  Portuguese 
from  Spanish"  ?  The  proposition  is  absurd.  The 
idea  is  ridiculous.  As  well  might  wo  insist  that 
the  mongrel  English  of  some  Gorman  settlement 


82  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

of  Pennsylvania  is  to  be  inteqjreted  by  the  diction- 
aries of  Johnson,  Webster,  and  Eichardson. 

Who  will  dare  to  deny  that  the  New  Testament 
employs  terms  which  were  familiar  to  the  classics, 
to  convey  thoughts  which  never  were  attached  to 
them  by  any  writers  anterior  to  the  apostles  or 
outside  of  the  Church?  He  who  does  must  main- 
tain that  the  New  Testament  contains  no  thought, 
no  meaning,  which  was  unfamiliar  to  uninspired 
sages.  And  who  has  ever  proven  that  baptizo  is  not 
one  of  those  terms  which  have  been  brought  over 
and  accommodated  to  a  sense  peculiarly  religious, 
and  technically  Christian  ?  Scapula  claims  that  it 
is  one  of  the  terms  so  accommodated.  Schoetgen 
asserts  the  same.  So  also  does  Schleusner,  and 
Parkhurst,  and  Robinson,  and  Ewing,  and  Winer, 
and  Stuart,  and  Beecher,  and  Wilson,  and  many 
more  who  stand  in  the  ranks  of  honored  Biblical 
critics.  To  insist,  then,  upon  interpreting  baptizo 
in  the  New  Testament  by  the  classic  use  of  this 
word,  is  to  set  up  a  principle  most  unreasonable  in 
its  nature,  mischievous  in  its  application,  and  re- 
pugnant to  the  deepest  convictions  of  justice.  But, 
if  we  must  meet  this  unrighteous  demand,  and  are 
compelled  to  go  to  the  heathen  Greeks  to  leai'n 
the  Christian  use  of  baptizo,  we  accept  the  chal- 
lenge, and  are  not  left  without  resource. 

IV.  We  will  show  that  even  the  classic  Greeks 
did  not  always  use  this  word  in  the  sense  of  "  im- 
merse and  nothing  else." 

The  passage  from  Heraclides  Ponticus,  which  is 
the  second  in  Dr.  Fuller's  list,  and  upon  which  w© 


BAPTIZO — THE   CLASSICS,  83 

have  commented,  furnishes  one  instance  to  our 
purpose.  The  baptizing  of  a  red-hot  mass  of  iron 
with  water,  in  this  case,  certainly  was  not  an  im- 
mersion. The  phraseology,  ^^with  water,"  and  the 
weiglit  of  the  heated  mass  baptized,  demonstrate 
that  this  baptism  was  performed  by  pouring  and 
applying  the  water  to  the  subject,  and,  hence,  that 
haptizo  here  does  not  and  cannot  mean  a  total 
immersion. 

Another  example  is  in  the  Sibylline  verse  cited 
by  Plutarch,  and  also  referred  to  by  Dr.  Fuller  as 
if  it  could  be  made  to  support  his  theory.  The 
words  are  these, — speaking  of  the  city  of  Athens: 
— "As  a  bladder  thou  mayest  be  baptized;  but  thou 
art  not  destined  to  sink."  The  plain  meaning  of 
this  passage  is,  that  the  illustrious  capital  of  Attica, 
though  it  might  undergo  grievous  calamities  and 
be  repeatedly  endangered  in  all  its  interests,  was 
destined  to  survive  its  disasters  and  to  be  pre- 
served from  utter  destruction, — just  as  a  skin  or 
bladder  filled  with  air,  and  thrown  upon  the  water, 
might  be  dashed  by  the  waves,  and  often  heavily 
sprinkled  with  their  spray,  (baptized,)  but  cannot 
be  submerged  by  them.  If  baptizo  means  to  sink, 
to  go  under  the  water,  to  be  totally  immersed,  then 
this  bladder  could  not  be  said  to  be  baptized ;  for 
it  is  explicitly  stated  that  it  (ou  dunai  esti)  should 
NOT  GO  UNDER,  should  not  be  submerged.  But, 
whilst  this  bladder  was  not  to  go  under,  the  classic 
author  says  that  it  might  be  baptized.  In  the  sense 
of  this  writer,  then,  baptizo  does  not  always  mean 
to  immerse.  It  means  here  to  sprinkle,  or  dash 
upon;  and  that  is  all. 


84  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

A  third  example  is  from  Plutarch,  where  he  saj^s 
of  a  dying  general,  "He  set  up  a  trophy,  ou  which, 
having  baptized  his  hand  in  blood,  he  wrote."  Dr. 
Fuller  asks,  upon  this  passage,  "Did  the  general 
sprinkle  or  pour  his  hand  ?"  We  answer,  No  :  he 
baptized  his  hand.  But,  as  it  now  is  our  time  to  ask 
questions,  we  demand.  Did  he  totally  immerse  his 
hand  ?  If  he  did,  tell  us  where  he  got  the  blood. 
He  was  dying  of  wounds;  and  it  was  doubtless  his 
ownJblood  that  he  used.  But  had  it  been  carefully 
caught  up  in  a  basin  in  sufficient  quantity  to  bury 
his  whole  hand  in  it?  There  is  nothing  to  indicate 
such  a  thing;  and  to  suppose  it  is  absurd.  How, 
then,  did  he  totally  immerse  his  hand?  All  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  give  but  one  answer, 
and  that  is  that  he  did  not  hnmerse  his  entire  hand. 
He  only  took  of  his  blood  upon  his  fingers  and 
wrote;  and  that  taking  of  his  blood  upon  his 
fingers  is  called  baptizing  his  hand.  According  to 
this  passage,  then,  again,  baptizo  does  not  mean 
total  immersion  and  nothing  else. 

A  fourth  example  is  from  the  Life  of  Homer 
attributed  to  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus.  In  the 
sixteenth  book  of  the  Iliad,  the  poet  says  of  Ajax 
slaying  Cleobulus,  "  He  struck  him  on  the  neck 
w^ith  his  hilted  sword,  and  the  whole  sword  xoas 
warmed  with  blood;"  on  which  Dionysius  remarks 
of  Homer,  "  In  this  he  expresses  greater  emphasis, 
as  the  sword  being  so  baptized  as  to  be  even 
warmed."  Gale  and  Carson  interpret  this  baptism 
so  as  to  make  the  sword  "so  dipped  in  blood  as  to 
be  heated  by  it."  At  such  laxity  of  paraphrase 
Dr.  Halley  is  indignant,  and  says^  "■  It  is  a  false- 


BAPTIZO — THE   CLASSICS.  85 

hood.  To  introduce  the  words  'dipped  in  blood' 
is  as  scandalous  a  misrepresentation  as  I  have  ever 
detected.  There  is  not  a  word  about  dipping  in 
blood  in  the  original."  But  what  shall  then  be 
said  of  Dr.  Fuller's  paraphrase,  where  he  makes 
the  passage  mean  "that  the  dagger  pierced  the 
throat,  and  there,  being  immersed  in  blood,  became 
warm"  ?  The  sword  certainly  was  rather  dipped 
in  blood  than  immersed  in  it.  The  plain  meaning 
of  the  passage  is  this: — that  Ajax  struck  his  sword 
on  the  neck  of  Cleobulus,  one  of  the  results  of  which 
was  that  the  blood  flowed  so  copiously  as  to  warm 
the  whole  sword.  There  was  no  dipping  of  the 
Bword  in  blood.  There  was  no  entire  burial  of  it 
in  the  neck  of  the  sufi'erer  and  a  leaving  of  it  stick- 
ing there.  It  was  simply  a  warming  of  the  sword 
by  the  profuse  gush  of  blood  which  attended  the 
stroke.  And  that  flow  of  the  blood  upon  the  sword 
of  Ajax  is  called  the  baptism  of  it.  We  deny  that 
it  could  have  been  a  total  immersion.  "VVe  deny 
that  it  was  a  dipping ;  but  Dionysius  says  it  was  a 
baptism.  Baptizo,  therefore,  does  not  always  mean 
a  total  immersion. 

We  have  already  submitted  a  few  remarks  upon 
the  classic  use  of  baptizo  as  connected  with  intoxi- 
cation. We  have  still  an  observation  or  two  to 
make  upon  that  point.  In  all  such  cases  the  idea 
is  evidently  connected  -wxih.  pouring  upon  and  pou?'- 
ing  into,  till  mind  and  body  are  overwhelmed,  im- 
pregnated, intoxicated,  drenched  to  stupefaction  or 
destruction.  Thus,  (Athen.  Deipnos.  lib.  5,)  "to 
have  been  baptized  \too  akratoo']  with  strong  wijve," 
does  not  mean  to  be  dipped,  plunged,  immersed  i!i 


8^  THE    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

wine.  The  Greek  has  the  dative  of  instrument, 
and  requires  the  construction  ''with  wine."  So 
also  in  the  passage,  "having  made  Alexander 
drunk  [baptized  him']  with  wine,"  and  in  other  in- 
stances which  we  can  give.  Alexander  was  not 
put  into  the  wine,  but  the  wine  was  put  into  him. 
There  was  a  drenching,  a  pouring  into,  a  saturation 
with,  but  no  dipping,  no  immersion.  In  all  such 
passages,  then,  haptizo  cannot  mean  total  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else.  And  to  these  passages 
we  may  add  the  best  of  authorities. 

Professor  Wilson,  of  the  Eoyal  College,  Belfast, 
has  this  remark : — *'  The  assertion  that  baptizo 
denotes  to  dip,  and  only  to  dip,  we  hold  to  be 
utterly  incapable  of  proof,  by  a  full  induction  of 
the  instances  presented  in  the  classical  literature 
of  Greece.  On  the  contrary,  the  usage  of  philo- 
sophers, historians,  and  poets  forces  the  admission 
of  considerable  latitude  as  to  mere  mode,  by  apply- 
ing the  term  indiscriminately  to  the  immersion  of 
an  object  in  the  baptizing  substance,  and  to  the 
bringing  of  the  baptizing  substance  upon  and 
around  an  object."  (P.  130.) 

Greville  Ewing,  author  of  a  Greek  Grammar  and 
a  Greek-and-English  Scripture  Lexicon,  says,  ''I 
distinctly  deny  that  the  Greeks  have  always  under- 
stood the  word  baptism  to  signify  dipping.  .  .  .  We 
are  prej^ared  to  show  that  it  signifies  the  appli- 
cation of  water,  or  some  other  liquid,  in  any  man- 
ner, or  for  any  purpose :  by  effusion,  affusion, 
perfusion,  or  infusion ;  by  sprinkling,  daubing, 
friction,  or  immersion ;  wholly  or  partially,  per- 
manently  or   for    a   moment;    for   purifying    or 


BAPTIZO — THE  CLASSICS.  87 

defiling,  ornamenting  or  bespattering,  washing 
away  what  was  found  adhering,  or  covering  with 
what  was  not  there  before ;  for  merely  wetting  the 
surface,  or  causing  the  liquor  to  sink  into  the 
inmost  core." 

Godwin  says  of  fifty  cases  which  he  had  col- 
lected of  the  use  of  baptizo,  "  there  are  only  three 
where  the  construction  is  that  required  by  the 
sense  of  dipping." 

Dr.  Beecher  says  of  the  classic  use  of  baptizo,  "1 
freely  admit  that  in  numerous  cases  it  clearly 
denotes  to  immerse, — in  which  case  an  agent  sub- 
merges partially  or  totally  some  person  or  thing. 
It  is  also  applied  to  cases  where  a  fluid  without  an 
agent  rolls  over  or  floods  and  covers  any  thing. 
It  is  also  applied  in  cases  where  some  person  or 
thing  sinks  passively  into  the  flood.  I  am  aware 
that  by  some  writers  vigorous  eff'orts  are  made  to 
reduce  all  these  senses  to  the  original  idea  to  im- 
merse or  dip.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  they  are 
rather  led  by  their  zeal  to  support  a  theory,  than 
by  a  careful  induction  from  facts ;  and  that  they 
wrest  facts  to  suit  their  principles,  rather  than 
derive  their  principles  from  facts." 

Dr.  John  Gumming  saj'S,  "  In  profane  writers, 
bapto  and  baptizo  are  unquestionably  used  both  in 
the  sense  of  dipping  and  pouring  or  sprinkling." 

Now,  what  more  can  any  reasonable  man  want  ? 
We  have  shown  that  the  examples  adduced  and 
relied  on  by  Baptists  give  baptizo  in  other  senses 
than  that  of  simple  dipping  or  immersion;  that,  if 
they  even  proved  immersion  to  be  the  clear  import 
of  this  word  so  far  as  respects  these  passages  them- 


08  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

selves,  it  would  prove  nothing  as  to  its  meaning 
in  other  places  and  writers;  that,  at  best,  classic 
Greek,  from  which  these  quotations  are  taken,  is 
an  unsafe  and  dangerous  guide  for  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Hebraic  Christian  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament;  nay,  more:  that,  even  in  the  classics, 
baptizo  is  often  used  where  the  idea  of  dipping  and 
immersion  is  foreign,  improbable,  and  impossible. 
And  if  this  is  not  enough  to  neutralize  and  demolish 
the  force  of  all  that  can  be  brought  from  the  clas- 
sics to  decide  the  meaning  of  Christ's  command, 
there  is  no  strength  in  logic  and  no  power  in  truth. 

What,  then,  does  this  part  of  Dr.  Fuller's  argu- 
ment, upon  which  he  has  staked  so  much,  amount 
to?  It  proves  that  in  some  cases  the  classic  use 
of  baptizo  denotes  the  act  of  dipping,  submerging, 
overflowing,  sinking,  drenching,  overwhelming; 
and  this  is  all  it  proves.  And,  as  to  this,  he  might 
have  saved  his  pains,  for  we  have  never  yet  found 
any  one  to  deny  it.  "VVe  admit  it  without  hesi- 
tation. But  we  do  most  peremptorily  deny  that 
the  classics  always  use  baptizo  in  this  sense,  or  that 
our  admission  is  worth  a  farthing  to  prove  that 
this  is  its  meaning  in  the  New  Testament. 

Greville  Ewing  says,  "I  have  not  been  able  to 
meet  with  an  instance  of  immersion-baptism  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures."  When  we  come  to  that  depart- 
ment of  this  inquiry,  we  shall  show  that  no  such 
instance  can  be  found.  But  we  must  first  dispose 
of  some  other  points. 


BAPTIZO — THE   AUTHOUITIES.  89 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 

BAPTIZO — THK   AUTHORITIES. 

To  his  citations  from  the  classics  Dr.  Fuller 
adds  a  number  of  authorities,  about  the  same  that 
are  found  in  nearly  every  Baptist  publication  on 
this  controversy.  Alleged  quotations  are  given 
from  Calvin,  Luther,  Beza,  Vitringa,  Hospinian, 
Gutlerus,  Buddeus,  Salmasius,  Yenema,  Fritzeche, 
Augusti,  Brenner,  Bretschneider,  Paulus,  Ehein- 
hard,  Scholz,  Lange,  and  Anthon,  to  prove — what? 
what  nobody  denies — that  haptizo  does  mean  im- 
merse. But  what  is  the  use  of  "being  so  wonder- 
fully erudite  upon  points  where  there  is  no  dis- 
pute? It  seems  to  be  a  settled  part  of  Baptist 
logic  to  accumulate  authorities  upon  things  in 
which  we  all  agree,  in  order,  by  an  adroit  petitio 
principii,  to  make  it  appear  that  they  have  tri- 
umphantly proven  what  they  have  not  yet  begun 
to  prove.  The  point  is  not  whether  haptizo  means 
immerse,  but  whether  this  is  its  specific,  uniform,  and 
only  meaning.  The  one  we  admit;  the  other  we 
deny.  Especially  in  classic  Greek  is  haptizo  used 
to  denote  sinking,  dipping,  plunging,  overwhelm- 
ing, destroying  by  water;  and  we  can  give  stronger 
instances  of  this  than  the  great  mass  of  those 
given   by  Dr.  Fuller.      But  we  would   surrender 

8« 


90  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED 

Rome  of  our  clearest  convictions  of  truth,  to  admit 
for  one  moment  that  it  is  never  used  in  other 
senses,  or  that  immerse  and  nothing  else  is  its 
meaning  in  the  New  Testament.  We  also  deny 
that  these  authors  referred  to  by  Dr.  Fuller  ever 
meant  to  say  that  immerse  is  the  only  meaning 
of  baptizo,  or  that  this  is  at  all  its  sense  in  the 
Scriptures. 

Calvin  is  quoted;  but  Calvin  says,  "Whether 
the  person  who  is  baptized  be  wholly  immersed, 
and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  iDhether  ivater  be 
only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  import- 
ance."    (Inst.  lib.  4,  ch.  15,  sec.  19.) 

Luther  is  quoted.  We  would  ask,  Was  Luther 
an  honest  man?  Will  any  one  charge  him  Avith 
being  too  great  a  coward  to  declare  his  convic- 
tions or  to  do  what  he  believed  to  be  right  ?  If 
he  then  really  believed  that  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament  means  immersion  and  nothing  else, 
what  is  the  reason  that  he  never  immersed  any 
one,  and  that  he  never  was  immersed  himself? 
He  agreed  that  immerse  is  a  common  meaning  of 
baptizo;  but  he  also  claimed  that  its  New  Testa- 
ment import  was  exhausted,  or,  at  least,  ade- 
quately met,  by  the  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  apply- 
ing "  a  mere  handful  of  water"  upon  the  candidate. 
He  speaks  of  "dipping  a  child  in  water,  or  sprinkling 
it  with  water,"  as  "  according  with  the  command  of 
Christ."  He  refers  to  baptism  as  involving  no 
parade  or  display,  and  says  that  therein  "  God  out- 
wardly does  no  more  than  apply  a  handful  of  water." 
Again,  he  says  of  baptism,  "  God  has  commanded 
that  we  use  our  hand  and  tongue  in  administering 


BAPTIZO — THE   AUTHORITIES.  91 

it,  by  sprinkling  water  upon  the  subject  in  connection 
with  the  words  which  he  has  prescribed."  Again, 
he  says,  ''All  that  is  essential  to  baptism  is  the  use 
of  natural  water  in  connection  loith  the  words  of  the 
institution."  Nay,  he  has  himself  given  ns  a  ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  he  translates 
baptizo  four  times  by  the  general  word  waschen,  to 
wash,  and  construes  it  elsewhere  several  times 
with  the  preposition  with  [m?Y], — ''with  water," 
^'with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  where  it  is  used 
with  reference  to  the  baptismal  sacrament  he 
renders  it  by  the  religious  word  taufen,  which, 
even  in  its  etymological  derivation,  is  a  much 
lighter,  freer,  and  more  general  word  than  those 
used  in  German  to  signify  immersion,  submersion, 
and  the  like.     And  in  Eev.  xix.  13  ho  translates 

baptO,    BESPRENGET — BESPRINKLED.      With    all    this 

before  him,  what  honest  man  can  ever  again  refer 
to  Luther  as  authority  for  the  doctrine  that  "  bap- 
tizo means  immerse  and  nothing  else"  ? 

Beza  is  quoted;  but  Beza  affirms  that  baptizo 
means  "to  wash"  as  well  as  to  immerse,  and  that 
it  "  differs  from  the  word  dunai,  which  signifies  to 
plunge  in,  to  go  under." 

Bretschneider  is  quoted ;  but  in  his  formal  defini- 
tion of  baptizo  he  says,  it  "properly  means  often 
to  dip,  often  to  wash;  then  to  wash,  simply  to 
cleanse;  in  the  middle  voice,  1  wash  or  cleanse  my- 
self." This  writer,  says  Dr.  Fuller,  "is  confessedly 
the  most  critical  lexicographer  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment." 

Fritzeche  is  quoted;  but  on  Mark  vii.  4,  8  he 
■  agrees  with  Grotius  in  giving  baptizo  the  gene- 


02  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

ral  signification  of  ^' wash,"  just  as  our  English 
translators  have  done,  some  of  whom  were  im- 
mersionists. 

Eeinhard  is  quoted;  but  in  looking  over  his 
theology  we  find  such  passages  as  these: — "It 
is  known  that  the  word  baptizo  means  to  wash 
[abwascheri],  to  cleanse;  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  well  as  in  other  authors,  it  embraces 
various  particular  significations.  Baptismos  in 
the  New  Testament  is  used  for  a  special  or 
general  purification."  "Earthly  or  perceptible, 
pure,  natural  water,  in  which  a  baptized  person  is 
immei'sed,  or  with  which  he  is  partially  sprinkled, 
is  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ."  "The  form 
or  rite  consists  of  an  immersion  or  sptvinlding  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  which 
is  clear  from  the  words  of  the  institution  itself." 
(Reinhard's  Dogmatik,  pp.  567,  570,  572.) 

Bloomfield  is  quoted;  but  on  Mark  vii.  4,  8 
Bloomfield  says,  "Here  we  are  not  to  suppose  an 
immersion  implied,  (that  being  never  used,  except 
when  some  actual  and  not  possible  pollution  had 
been  incurred,)  but  merely  ordinary  xvashing,  or 
perhaps,  on  occasions  of  urgent  haste,  sprinkling. 
Hence  the  gloss  (for  it  is  only  a  gloss)  of  some 
manuscripts, — rantizontai." 

Buddeus  is  quoted.  We  have  not  his  theology 
at  hand  to  refer  to;  but,  from  our  knowledge  of 
Buddeus,  we  are  confident  that  he  no  more  makes 
immersion  essential  to  Christian  baptism  than 
does  Eeinhard. 

The  Leipsic  Free  Inquiry  on  this  subject  is 
cited;    but    the    author    agrees    that  under  cer- 


BAPTIZO — THE   AUTHORITIES.  93 

tain  conditions  "  the  ivord  means  cleansing  or  wash- 
ing," (p.  7.) 

From  these  specimens  the  reader  will  see  the 
way  in  which  Baptist  conti'oversialists  deal  with 
authorities,  and  how  they  make  learned  men  say 
what  they  never  meant  to  say, — nay,  what  they 
have  pointedly  contradicted  and  denied.  A  man 
says  that  baptizo  means  immerse,  and  his  words 
ave  caught  up  and  printed  in  every  Baptist  book, 
and  recited  in  every  Baptist  pulpit,  in  proof  that 
baptizo  everywhere  and  always  means  immersion; 
when  that  same  man  holds  the  contrary,  and  has 
so  declared,  sometimes  on  the  same  page  and  in 
the  same  line  from  which  the  quotation  is  made.  Is 
this  fair  ?  Is  it  honest  ?  We  have  admitted  that 
baptizo  sometimes  means  immerse,  especially  in  the 
classics;  but  would  it  be  a  just  version  of  our 
sentiments  to  quote  those  admissions  in  proof  that 
baptizo  means  only  to  immerse,  or  that  it  must  be 
so  interpreted  in  the  I^Tew  Testament  ?  Certainly 
not.  It  would  be  a  base  misrepresentation.  "VYe 
hold,  with  Dr.  Owen,  that  "  no  one  instance  can  be 
given  in  the  Scriptures  wherein  baptizo  doth  neces- 
sarily signify  either  to  dip  or  to  plunge."  Dr.  Owen, 
says  Rice,  "  is  one  of  the  greatest  men  who  has 
lived." 

As  to  Professor  Anthon's  opinion,  given  to  Dr. 
Parmly,  respecting  the  force  of  bapAizo,  and  con- 
cerning which  our  Baptist  friends  make  so  much 
ado,  we  will  merely  quote  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Eico 
in  his  debate  with  Campbell : — 

"Dr.  Anthon,  I  presume,  is  a  classical  scholar; 
but  I  have  abundantly  proved  that  an  acquaint- 


94  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

ance  with  classic  Greek  will  not  qualify  a  man  to 
expound  the  language  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  written  in  Hebrew-Greek.  The  classic 
usage,  as  Ernesti  and  Dr.  Campbell  and  Professor 
Stuart  affirm,  will,  if  followed,  in  many  cases  en- 
tirely mislead  the  interpreter  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. I  would  attach  very  little  importance,  there- 
fore, to  the  opinion  of  a  classical  scholar  concern- 
ing an  important  word  in  the  New  Testament, 
unless  I  knew  he  had  studied  the  idiom  of  the 
Greek  spoken  by  the  Jews  and  inspired  writers. 
Dr.  Anthon  decided  that  Dr.  Spring  was  in  error 
concerning  this  word.  But  I  venture  to  say  that 
Dr.  Spring  is  quite  as  well  known  as  a  scholar  as 
the  gentleman  who  sat  in  judgment  upon  him. 
Dr.  Spring  is  one  of  the  first  men  in  our  country; 
and  it  will  not  do  to  attempt  to  put  down  the 
views  he  may  have  expressed  mei-ely  by  the  ipse 
dixit  of  Dr.  Anthon.  Dr.  Clarke  will,  perhaps,  be 
admitted  to  have  been  equal  as  a  classical  scholar — 
at  least,  so  far  as  languages  are  concerned — to  Dr. 
Anthon;  and  he  says  it  is  cei'tain  that  baptizo 
means  both  to  dip  and  to  sprinkle.  Perhaps  Dr. 
Dwight  will  be  admitted  to  have  been  superior  in 
Biblical  criticism  to  Dr.  Anthon;  and  he,  after  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  came  fully  to 
the  conclusion  that,  in  the  Scriptures,  baptizo  does 
not  at  all  mean  to  immerse.  Dr.  Scott,  the  learned 
commentator,  was  of  a  similar  opinion.  I  will 
put  the  authority  of  such  men  as  these  against 
that  of  Anthon."  (P.  176.) 

It  is  also  noticeable  in  these  quotations  that  Dr. 
•Fuller  gives  them  as  "concessions  from  learned 


BATTIZO — THE    AUTIIORITIKS.  95 

men  not  Eaptists."  Alexander  Campbell  had  so 
presented  them  before.  But  a  concession  is  the  act 
of  granting  or  yielding,  implying  a  demand  or 
claim  from  the  party  to  whom  it  is  made;  and 
many  of  the  authors  named  lived  anterior  to  the 
rise  of  the  Baptist  controversy,  or  in  countries 
where  this  subject  was  never  mooted.  "What  such 
have  said  cannot  therefore  be  made  to  pass  for  the 
"concessions"  of  men  who  had  the  point  in  debate 
distinctly  before  them,  and  yielded  only  to  the 
pressure  of  demand.  They  spoke  these  things, 
if  they  are  rightly  quoted,  not  in  the  way  of  con- 
cessions  to  the  strength  of  Baptist  argument,  but 
in  the  way  of  free  etymological  illustrations  of 
great  spiritual  truths, — just  as  Dr.  Chalmers  refers 
to  the  practice  of  the  Oriental  Chiirches  of  ad- 
ministering baptism  by  immersion.  They  did  not 
mean  to  admit  that  immersion  enters  into  the 
essence  and  validity  of  baptism  as  a  Christian 
sacrament.  Else  why  did  they  not  practice  im- 
mersion ?  Or  why  were  they  content  without 
being  immersed  themselves?  How  could  they  say 
that  their  own  baptism  was  no  baptism  at  all,  and 
yet  not  seek  after  any  other?  They  were  Chris- 
tian men.  They  taught  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary. And  yet  we  are  to  be  told  that  they  held 
and  believed  there  could  be  no  baptism  without 
immersion,  and  thus  regarded  their  own  personal 
and  cherished  Christianity  as  a  mere  farce! 

We  feel  particularly  indignant,  in  this  connection, 
at  Alexander  Campbell,  for  the  manner  in  which 
ho  professes  to  quote  Luther.  In  his  Debate  with 
Eice,  p.  152,  he  says,  "  I  place  at  the  head  of  the 


96  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

list  the  Eeformer  and  translator,  Martin  Luther. 
In  the  fifth  of  the  Smaleald  Articles,  drawn  up  by 
Luther,  he  says,  '  Baptism  is  nothing  else  than  the 
"word  of  God  with  immersion  in  water.'"  The 
original  words  of  Luther  are  these  : — ''  Die  Taufe 
ist  nichts  anders  denn  Gottes  wort  im  wasser;"  the 
literal  English  of  which  is,  ''Baptism  is  nothing  else 
than  the  word  of  God  in  water."  Luther  here  is  not 
speaking  of  mode  at  all,  but  of  the  constitution  and 
nature  of  the  baptismal  sacrament.  He  quotes  in 
the  same  connection  from  Augustine: — "When  the 
woi'd  comes  to  be  with  the  element,  it  becomes  a 
sacrament."  It  is  the  union  of  the  word  and  water 
to  constitute  this  sacrament,  of  which  he  is  treat- 
ing, and  not  the  connection  of  the  candidate  with 
the  w^ater.  "Baptism  is  the  loord  of  God  in  loater:" 
i.e.  the  word  of  God  demands  the  use  of  water,  and 
in  that  water  the  word  of  God  is  reflected.  As  he 
elsewhere  expresses  it,  "  The  sacrament  is  the 
visible  word;"  or,  as  he  says  again,  ''The  word  is 
included  in  the  water."  There  is  no  immersion 
about  it.  The  mode  of  administering  the  ordi- 
nance is  not  at  all  in  point.  It  has  no  place  in  the 
passage.  Yet  this  is  the  way  "  learned  men  not 
Baptists"  are  quoted  to  prove  that  Baptists  are 
right,  aud  nobody  else  ! 

But,  if  our  Baptist  friends  think  to  settle  this 
question  by  authorities,  we  also  have  a  few,  to 
which  we  now  invito  attention. 

Dr.  Dwight,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  theo- 
logians and  scholars  this  country  has  ever  pro- 
duced, says,  "I  have  examined  almost  one  hundred 
instances  in  which  the  word  baptizo  and  its  deriva- 


BAPTIZO — THE    AUTHORITIES.  97 

tives  are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  four  in 
the  Septuagint, — these,  so  far  as  I  have  observed, 
being  all  the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this 
examination  it  is  to  my  apprehension  evident  that 
the  following  things  are  true  : — That  the  primary 
meaning  of  these  terms  is  cleansing, — the  effect,  not 
the  mode,  of  washing;  and  that  these  words,  al- 
though often  capable  of  denoting  any  mode  of 
washing,  whether  by  affusion,  sprinkling,  or  im- 
mersion, (since  cleansing  was  familiarly  accom- 
plished by  the  Jews  in  all  these  ways,)  yet  in 
many  instances  cannot,  without  obvious  impro- 
priety, be  made  to  signify  immersion,  and  in  others 
cannot  signify  it  at  all."  (Theol.  vol.  iv.  p.  345.) 

Dr.  Henderson  says,  "  With  respect  to  the  Greek 
word  baptizo,  after  having  read  almost  every  work 
that  professes  to  throw  any  light  upon  it,  and 
carefully  examined  all  the  passages  in  which  both 
it  and  its  derivatives  occur  in  the  sacred  volume, 
and  a  very  considerable  number  of  those  in  which 
it  is  found  in  classic  authors,  we  are  free  to  confess 
we  have  not  yet  fallen  in  with  a  single  instance  in 
which  it  can  be  satisfactorily  proved  that  it  signifies 
a  submersion  of  the  whole  body,  Avithout  at  the 
same  time  conveying  the  idea  that  the  submersion 
was  permanent,  i.e.  that  the  body  thus  submerged 
sunk  to  rise  no  more.  So  far  as  has  vet  been  ascer- 
tained, the  word  is  never  used  by  any  ancient 
author  in  the  sense  of  one  person  performing  an 
act  of  submersion  upon  another."  How  evident, 
therefore,  that  this  word  has  a  peculiar  and  specific 
sense  when  employed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that, 


98  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

when  so  employed,  mere  immersion  cannot  be  its 
meaning. 

Dr.  Watson  says,  "  The  verb  bapto,  with  its  de- 
rivatives, signifies  to  dip  the  hand  into  a  dish,  to 
stain  a  vesture  with  blood,  to  wet  the  body  with 
dew,  to  paint  or  smear  the  face  with  colors,  to 
stain  the  hand  by  pressing  a  substance,  to  be  over- 
whelmed in  the  waters  as  a  sunken  ship,  to  be 
drowned  by  falling  into  the  water,  to  sink,  in  the 
neuter  sense,  to  immerse  totally,  to  plunge  up  to 
the  neck,  to  be  immersed  up  to  the  middle,  to  be 
drunk  with  wine,  to  be  dyed,  tinged,  or  imbued, 
to  wash  by  affusion  of  water,  to  pour  water  upon 
the  hands  or  any  part  of  the  body,  to  sprinkle.  A 
word  then  of  such  application  aifords  as  good  proof 
of  sprinkling,  or  partial  dipping,  or  washing  with 
water,  as  for  immersion  in  it.  The  controversy  on 
this  accommodating  word  has  been  carried  on  to 
weariness ;  and  if  even  the  advocates  of  immersion 
could  prove — what  they  have  not  been  able  to  do — 
that  plunging  is  the  primary  meaning  of  the  term, 
they  would  gain  nothing,  since  in  Scripture  it  is 
notoriously  used  to  express  other  applications  of 
water." 

Dr.  Owen  says,  "  Baptizo  signifies  to  ivash,  as 
instances  out  of  all  authors  may  be  given, — Suidas, 
Hesychius,  Julius  Pollux,  Phavorinus,  and  Eus- 
tachius.  It  is  first  used  in  the  Scripture,  Mark  i. 
8 ;  John  i.  33 ;  and  to  the  same  purpose  in  Acts  i.  5. 
In  every  place  it  either  signifies  to  pour,  or  the 
expression  is  equivocal :"  Heb.  ix.  9,  10.  "  Sap- 
tismos  is  any  kind  of  washing,  whether  by  dipping 
or  sprinkling,  putting  the  thing  to 'be  washed  in 


BAPTIZO THE   AUTHORITIES.  99 

the  water,  or  applying  the  water  to  the  thing  itself 
to  be  washed.  ...  As  it  [baptizoli  espresseth  bap- 
tism, it  denotes  to  wash  only,  and  not  to  dip  at  all : 
for  so  it  is  expounded,  Tit.  iii.  5.  ...  As  the  word 
is  applied  unto  the  ordinance,  the  sense  of  dipping 
is  utterly  excluded." 

The  learned  Calmet,  in  his  Dictionary,  defines 
"baptis7nos,  from  baptizo,  to  wash,  to  dip  or  im- 
merge." 

Dr.  Hill,  of  St.  Mary's  College,  St.  Andrews, 
says,  "Both  sprinkling  and  immersion  are  implied 
in  the  word  baptizo :  both  were  used  in  the  religious 
ceremonies  of  the  Jews,  and  both  may  be  con- 
sidered as  significant  of  the  purpose  of  baptism." 
(Divinity,  p.  470.) 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  admitted  to  have  been  an 
eminent  linguist,  says,  (Matt.  iii.  6,)  "Were  the 
people  dipped,  or  sprinkled  ?  for  it  is  certain  bapto 
and  baptizo  mean  both." 

The  theologian  Dr.  John  Dick  says,  "Nothing 
certain  as  to  mode  can  be  learned  from  the  original 
term  baptizo,  because  it  has  different  meanings, 
signifying  sometimes  to  immerse,  and  sometimes 
to  wash."  (Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  377.) 

The  Westminster  divines,  in  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, say,  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New 
Testament,  wherein  Christ  hath  ordained  the  wash- 
ing with  water." 

Dr.  Scott,  in  his  Commentary  on  Matt,  iii.,  says, 
"  Baptizo  seems  to  be  a  word  borrowed  fi'om  the 
Greek  authors,  signifying  to  plunge  in,  or  bedew 
with,  water,  without  any  exact  distinction ;  and  it 
was  adopted  into  the  style  of  Scripture  in  a  peculiar 


100  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

sense,  to  signify  the  use  of  water  in  this  ordinance, 
and  various  spiritual  matters  which  have  a  relation 
to  it.  Some,  indeed,  contend  zealously  that  bap- 
tism always  signifies  immersion;  and  learned  men 
who  have  regarded  Jewish  traditions  more  than 
either  the  language  of  Scripture  or  the  Greek 
idiom  are  very  decided  in  this  respect ;  but  the  use 
of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment cannot  accord  with  this  exclusive  interpreta- 
tion." Such  was  the  opinion  of  this  distinguished 
man,  as  he  says,  "  after  many  years'  consideration 
and  study." 

The  great  and  pious  Spener  says,  "  Mere  pouring 
upon  is  also  to  be  called  baptism."  {Erklarung 
Christ.  Lehre,  p.  410.) 

The  distinguished  theologian  David  Hollaz, 
whose  early  death,  in  1713,  has  often  been  de- 
plored, makes  this  statement : — "  It  is  necessary 
that  an  individual  should  be  baptized  with  water, — 
that  is,  washed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost ;  but  it  matters  not  whether  this  ab- 
lution is  performed  by  immersion  into  water,  or 
by  affusion  or  sprinkling  with  water."  (Exam. 
Theolog.  Acroamat.) 

Haupt,  in  his  Examin.  Dogmat.  pp.  365,  366, 
says,  "  Baptism  is  the  immersion  or  spritikling  of  a 
human  being  in  or  with  water,  on  the  ground  of 
the  command  and  clothed  with  the  word  of  God, 
.  .  .  Baptismos  in  the  New  Testament  denotes  par- 
ticular kinds  of  purifying." 

The  learned  commentator  Olshausen,  on  Mark 
vii.  1,  2,  8,  says,  ^^  Baptismos  is  here,  as  at  Heb.  ix, 
10,  ablution, — washing  generally." 


BAPTIZO THE   AUTHORITIES.  101 

Dr.  Gumming  says,  "In  the  New  Testament 
baptizo  is  used  in  the  sense  of  pouring  on,  or  sprink- 
ling." 

Dr.  Wall,  who  has  searched  very  profoundly 
into  this  whole  subject,  says,  "The  word  baptizo, 
in  Scripture,  signifies  to  wash  in  general,  without 
determining  the  sense  to  this  or  that  sort  of  wash- 
ing." 

Even  Dr.  Gale,  himself  a  strenuous  Baptist, 
writing  upon  this  controversy,  is  constrained  to 
admit,  that  "  the  word  baptizo  perhaps  does  not  so 
necessarily  express  the  action  of  putting  under 
water,  as,  in  general,  a  thing's  being  in  that  con- 
dition, no  matter  how  it  comes  so,  whether  it  is  put 
into  the  water,  or  the  water  comes  over  it."  (Eefl.  122.) 

Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  says,  "  This  word  [bap- 
tizo'] does  not  necessarily,  nor  even  commonly, 
signify  to  immerse,  but  also  implies  to  wash,  to 
sprinkle,  to  pour  on  water,  and  to  tinge  or  dye  with 
any  liquid,  and,  therefore,  accords  very  well  with 
the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion.  .  .  . 
It  does  legitimately  signify  the  application  of  water 
in  any  way,  as  well  as  by  immersion.  Nay,  I  can 
assure  you,  if  the  most  mature  and  competent 
Greek  scholars  that  ever  lived  may  be  allowed  to 
decide  in  this  case,  that  many  examples  of  the  use 
of  this  word  occur  in  Scripture  in  which  it  not  only 
may,  but  manifestly  must,  signify  sprinkling,  per- 
fusion, or  washing  in  any  way." 

Edwards  says,  "  Baptizo  has  indeed  been  used  for 

all  the  modes  of  washing, — sprinkling,  pouring, 

and  immersing;  whereas  it  does  not  express  the 

one  nor  the  other,  but  washing  only;  and  this  may 

9* 


102  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

be  done  in  either  of  the  modes;  and,  therefore, 
when  we  read  of  any  person  or  thing  being  bap- 
tized, we  cannot  conclude  from  the  word  itself 
whether  it  was  done  by  affusion,  aspersion,  or 
immersion." 

Dr.  Beecher  says,  "The  word  baptizo,  as  a  re- 
ligious term,  means  neither  dip  nor  sprinkle, 
immerse  nor  pour,  nor  any  other  external  action 
in  appljnng  a  fluid  to  the  body  or  the  body  to  a 
fluid,  nor  any  action  that  is  limited  to  one  mode 
of  performance;  but,  as  a  religious  term,  it  means, 
at  all  times,  to  purify  or  cleanse, — words  of  a 
meaning  so  general  as  not  to  be  confined  to  any 
mode,  or  agent,  or  means,  or  object,  whether 
material  or  spiritual,  but  to  leave  the  widest  scope 
for  the  question  as  to  the  mode.  So  that  in  this 
usage  it  is  in  every  respect  a  perfect  synonym  of 
the  word  katharizo." 

Dr.  Hunnius  says,  "Baptism  means  to  dip,  to 
wash.  The  washing  of  the  Christian  is  called 
baptism."  (Epit.  Cred.  §  632.) 

Dr.  Sehmucker  says,  "It  is  evident  that  many 
of  the  purifications  termed  baptisms  in  the  JSTew 
Testament  were  certainly  pei-formed  by  sprink- 
ling and  pouring;  whilst  it  is  not  certain  that  they 
were  performed  by  immersion  in  a  single  case. 
Hence,  there  is  much  more  Scripture  authority  for 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  than  for  immersion,  in  the 
New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  baptism.  .  We 
have  the  authority  of  Paul  and  Mark,  that  baptizo 
signifies  various  applications  of  water  practiced 
by  the  Jews  in  their  religious  rites,  which  certainly 
included  sprinkling,   pouring,    washing,  bathing, 


BAPTIZO — THE   AUTHORITIES.  103 

but  in  no  case,  certainly,  immersion."  (Manual,  p. 
143.) 

Wesley  is  sometimes  referred  to  by  Baptists  in 
support  of  their  interpretation  of  baptizo.  We 
shall  therefore  give  him  a  chance  to  speak  for  him- 
self "The  matter  of  this  sacrament  is  water, 
which,  as  it  has  a  natural  power  of  cleansing,  is 
the  more  fit  for  this  symbolical  use.  Baptism  is 
performed  by  washing,  dipping,  or  sprinkling  the 
person  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost;  I  say  by  washing,  sprinkling,  or  dipping; 
because  it  is  not  determined  in  Scripture  in  which 
of  these  ways  it  shall  be  done,  neither  by  any 
express  precept,  nor  by  any  such  example  as  clearly 
proves  it,  nor  by  the  force  or  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism." 

Dr.  Eice  says,  "I  have  now  examined  every 
passage  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Apocryphal  writings 
of  the  Jews,  where  the  word  baptizo  is  used  in  a 
literal  sense,  without  reference  to  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  baptism;  and  my  clear  conviction  is, 
that  there  is  not  one  instance  in  which  it  can  be 
proved  to  mean  immerse;  that  in  every  instance, 
except,  perhaps,  one  which  may  be  doubtful,  it  can 
be,  and  has  been,  proved  to  express  the  application 
of  water  to  the  person  or  thing  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling."  (Debate  with  Campbell,  p.  158.) 

Gerhard,  according  to  Tholuck,  "the  most 
learned,  and  with  the  learned  the  most  beloved, 
among  the  heroes  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy,"  says, 
"Whether  a  man  is  baptized  by  immersion  into 
water,  or  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  applying  the 
water  to  him,  it  is  the  same."  (Loci  Theol.  ix  137.) 


104  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Dr.  Schaff  says,  "The  application  of  water  is 
necessary  to  this  sacrament;  but  the  quantity  of 
it,  as  also  the  quality,  is  certainly  not  essential. 
Otherwise  we  should  in  fact  bind  the  efficacy  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  what  is  material  and  acci- 
dental." (History,  p.  570.) 

Dr.  Tracy  says,  "The  word  baptism  is  derived 
from  the  Greek  baptisma  and  baptizo,  and  more  re- 
motely from  bapto,  and  properly  signifies  a  washing, 
whether  the  substance  washed  be  partially  or 
wholly  immersed  in  the  liquid,  or  the  liquid  be 
applied  to  the  substance,  by  running,  pouring, 
rubbing,  dropping,  or  sprinkling."  (Encycl.  Eel. 
Knowl.  p.  23.) 

Carpzov,  in  his  Issagoge,  says,  "Baptism  is  a 
Greek  word,  and  in  itself  means  a  washing,  in 
whatever  way  performed,  whether  by  immersion  in 
water,  or  by  aspersion,"  (p.  1085.)  "It  is  called  in 
Scripture  the  washing  of  water.  ...  It  is  not  re- 
stricted to  immersion  or  aspersion :  hence  it  has 
been  a  matter  of  indifference  from  the  beginning 
whether  to  administer  baptism  by  immersion  or 
by  the  pouring  of  water."  (P.  330.) 

If,  then,  there  is  any  weight  in  authority,  here 
is  an  array  of  names,  representing  learning,  indus- 
try, piety,  and  love  for  truth,  enough,  and  suffi- 
ciently directed  to  the  point  in  dispute,  to  be  an 
adequate  and  complete  offset  to  all  the  authoi-s 
that  our  Baptist  friends  can  by  any  means  produce. 
We  have  shown  that  the  most  valuable  of  those 
referred  to  by  Dr.  Fuller  have  been  misquoted 
and  misrepresented,  being  made  to  speak  what 
they  never  meant,  and  what   many  of  them  ex- 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE    SEPTUAGINT.  105 

plicitly  deny.  The  same  is  probably  true  of  others 
to  whose  writings  we  have  not  had  access,  or  the 
time  to  examine.  And  as  to  the  few  who  have 
said  that  immerse  is  a  meaning  which  always 
adheres  to  haptizo,  all  that  we  have  to  say  is,  that 
they  have  said  what  cannot  be  made  good,  and 
that  their  opinions  are  worthless  by  the  side  of 
what  we  have  given  as  an  offset  to  them. 

So  far,  then,  as  authorities  are  concerned,  our 
Baptist  brethren  are  still  as  far  from  proving  their 
doctrine  as  ever.  Every  successive  step  but  makes 
it  plainer  that  they  have  assumed  grounds  which 
cannot  be  maintained;  whilst  our  position  grows 
firmer  and  firmer  that  haptizo  means  to  wash, 
cleanse,  and  purify,  without  reference  to  mode. 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

BAPTlZO   IN   THE    SEPTUAGINT. 

We  come  now  to  examine  a  kind  of  Greek 
which  is  more  closely  allied  to  the  Greek  in  which 
the  New  Testament  was  written, — viz.,  the  Greek 
version  of  the  seventy  translators  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  Apocrypha,  made  during  the  reign 
of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  about  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before  the  commencement  of  the  Chris- 
tian era. 

The  first  passage  we  note  in  which  this  word 
occurs  is  Isaiah  xxi.  4.     Dr.  Fuller  thus  gives  it, — 


106  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

that  is  to  say,  his  version  of  it : — "The  prophet,  fore- 
seeing the  capture  of  Babylon  and  the  subjugation 
of  the  empire  by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  says, 
'My  heart  pants,  and  iniquity  sinks  (baptizes)  me.' " 
(P.  49.)  Dr.  Fuller  is  horrified  at  the  evident  slips 
of  the  pen  made  by  Mr.  Lape  in  quoting  from  an 
Apocryphal  book,  under  the  head  of  "Instances 
from  the  classic  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament,"  and 
in  miswriting  a  Greek  word.  He  indeed  exculpates 
Mr.  Lape  from  "designed  perversion  of  God's 
word,"  but  holds  him  "inexcusable"  for  his 
"entire  ignorance."  What  then  shall  be  said  of 
Dr.  Fuller,  when  we  open  the  Bible  and  find  that 
the  passage  reads,  p.ot  "iniquity  sinks  me,"  but 
"fearfulness  affrighted  me"  ?  Has  he  designedly 
or  ignorantly  put  words  in  the  prophet's  lips  which 
the  prophet  never  uttered  ?  Dr.  Alexander  renders 
the  original  Hebrew,  '^Horror  appalls  me."  (See 
his  commentary  on  this  verse.)  Scott  says,  "The 
prophet  here  seems  to  personate  Belshazzar  on  the 
night  when  Babylon  was  taken."  (See  his  Com- 
mentary.) The  passage  evidently  points  to  the 
scene  described  by  Daniel,  v.  1-6 : — "Belshazzar  the 
king  made  a  great  feast  to  a  thousand  of  his  lords, 
and  drank  wine  before  the  thousand.  .  .  .  And  they 
brought  the  golden  vessels  that  were  taken  out  of 
the  temple  of  the  house  of  God,  which  was  at 
Jerusalem,  and  the  king  and  his  princes,  and  his 
wives  and  his  concubines,  drank  in  them.  .  .  . 
In  the  same  hour  came  forth  fingers  of  a  man's 
hand  and  wrote  over  against  the  candlestick  upon 
the  plaster  of  the  wall  of  the  king's  palace;  and 
the  king  saw  the  part  of  the  hand  that  wrote. 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  107 

Then  the  king's  countenance  was  changed,  and  his 
thoughts  troubled  him,  so  that  the  joints  of  his  loins 
were  loosed  and  his  knees  smote  ojie  against  another." 
Accordingly,  Lowth  paraphrases  the  passage  as  if 
Belshazzar  were  saying  to  himself,  "When  I 
thought  to  be  at  ease  and  to  have  some  respite 
from  trouble  and  anxiety,  then  the  fearful  appre- 
hensions of  God's  judgments  seized  me."  (See  his 
Commentarj'-.)  And  all  this  fright,  appalling  horror, 
trembling,  and  seizure  of  the  soul  with  fearful 
apprehension  of  God's  judgments  is  signified  in 
the  version  of  the  Seventy — which  is  honored  and 
dignified  by  being  quoted  by  Christ  himself  and 
his  inspired  apostles — by  the  one  word  baptizei. 
Did  those  translators  mean  that  Belshazzar  or  the 
prophet  was  dipped  in  horror?  Certainly  not. 
The  whole  case  shows  a  sudden  coming  of  something 
upon  him,  which  was  the  pouring  out  of  the  ven- 
geance of  God.  It  was  the  wrath  of  God  breaking 
upon — an  overwhelming,  a  bringing  of  something 
upon  the  subject,  and  nothing  more.  The  idea  of 
plunging,  or  putting  the  subject  into,  is  entirely 
excluded. 

The  next  place  in  the  Septuagint  in  which  we  find 
this  word  is  2  Kings  v.  14 : — "  Then  he  [Naaman] 
went  down  and  dipped  [ebaptisato']  himself  seven 
times  in  Jordan,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man 
of  God."  Dr.  Puller  lays  great  stress  upon  this 
passage,  and  is  amazed  that  any  "candid  man" 
can  any  longer  doubt  with  this  instance  before 
him.  He  refers  to  it  on  all  occasions,  and  evidently 
regards  it  as  his  strongest  point.  Let  us  then  look 
at  it  with  care. 


108  TIIK    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    KXAMINEP. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  record  says  that 
Naaman  "baptized  himself  according  to  the  saying 
of  the  man  of  God."  We  must,  then,  ascertain 
what  that  saying  w^as,  and  interpret  the  ebaptisato 
according  to  the  sense  of  the  terms  used  in  the 
command  of  Avhich  the  baptism  was  the  fulfillment. 
This  is  plain  common  sense : — that  if  Naaman  bap- 
tized himself  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of 
God,  that  ''saying  of  the  man  of  God"  must  con- 
tain the  true  sense  in  which  the  word  baptizo  is 
used. 

Going  back,  then,  a  few  verses,  we  read  that 
"Elisha  sent  a  messenger  unto  him,  saying.  Go 
and  WASH  [lousai']  in  Jordan  seven  times,  .  .  .  and 
thou  shalt  be  clean  [katharisthase'].  But  Naaman 
was  Avi'oth,  and  went  away,  and  said,  Behold,  I 
thought,  he  will  surely  come  out  to  me,  and  stand, 
and  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  and 
strike  his  hand  over  the  place.  [It  would  seem  that 
Naaraan's  leprosy  was  confined  to  one  particular 
location  on  his  body.]  Ai*e  not  Abana  and  Phar- 
par,  rivers  of  Damascus,  better  than  all  the  waters 
of  Israel?  May  I  not  wash  [louso7nai^  in  them  and 
BE  CLEAN?  So  hc  turned,  and  went  away  in  a 
rage.  And  his  servants  came  near,  and  spake 
unto  him,  and  said,  My  father,  if  the  prophet  had 
bid  thee  do  some  great  thing,  w^ouldst  thou  not 
have  done  it?  How  much  rather,  then,  when  he 
saith  to  thee,  Wash  [lousail^  and  be  clean?" 

The  saying  of  the  man  of  God,  then,  according 
to  which  Naaman  baptized  himself,  was  not  a  com- 
mand to  immerse  himself  totally,  but  to  wash  and 
cleanse  himself.    The  Greek  words  in  the  command 


BAPTJZO   IN   THE   SEPTUAGINT.  109 

are  not  bapto  and  baptizo,  but  louo  and  katharizo. 
And,  according  to  Dr.  Fuller's  own  argument,  on 
page  31,  we  can  demonstrate  that  the  prophet's 
bidding  had  no  sort  of  reference  to  immersion. 
What  does  Dr.  Fuller  say?  how  does  he  reason? 
"Jesus  could  have  been  at  no  loss  for  a  word 
clearly  to  express  his  meaning.  Did  he  intend 
sprinkling  f  The  word  was  ran;f?>o.  Did  he  require 
pouring?  The  word  was  keo.  If  wash,  nipto, 
[which,  by-the-way,  according  to  Dr.  Fuller's 
own  authority  on  page  21,  means  to  wet  or  wash 
only  the  hands.]  If  bathe,  louo.  If  immerse  or 
dye,  bapto.  If  immerse  and  nothing  else,  the  word 
was  baptizo."  We  argue,  then,  upon  Dr.  Fuller's 
ground,  if  Elisha  intended  Naaman  to  immerse 
himself  totally  and  nothing  else,  the  word  to  ex- 
press it  was  baptizo.  But  the  prophet,  according 
to  the  Seventy,  did  not  use  the  word  baptizo,  but 
louo  and  katharizo.  Therefore  it  inevitably  follows, 
from  Dr.  Fuller's  own  showing,  that  the  prophet 
did  not  intend  that  Naaman  should  immerse  him- 
self. And  if  Elisha  did  not  direct  Naaman  to 
immerse  himself,  and  Naaman's  baptism  was 
according  to  Elisha' s  direction,  the  Seventy  have 
either  used  the  word  baptizo  wrongly,  or  it  does 
not  mean  immersion  and  nothing  else.  "We  cannot 
conceive  how  Dr.  Fuller,  with  all  his  dexterity 
and  cunning,  is  to  extricate  himself  from  this 
dilemma. 

But  we  do  not  stop  with  this.  We  insist  that 
louo  and  katharizo  in  the  prophet's  command  must 
give  the  sense  of  baptizo,  which  describes  the  act 
of  Naaman  in  complying  with  the  command ;  for 

10 


110  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

it  is  expressly  declared  that  he  "  baptized  himself 

ACCORDING   TO    THE    SAYING    OF  THE    MAN   OF   GoD." 

There  can  be  no  dispute  about  the  fact  that  katha- 
rizo  means  simply  to  cleanse,  especially  in  the  legal 
sense  of  purification,  which  was  for  the  most  part 
performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  water  over  the 
subject.  And  louo  evidently  means  nearly  the  same 
thing.  It  is  used  eight  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  in  no  one  instance  does  it  convey  any 
other  meaning  than  that  of  cleanse  or  purify.  In 
Titus  iii.  5  it  denotes  the  work  of  God's  Holy 
Spirit  in  purifying  and  renewing  the  heart.  In 
Acts  xvi.  33  it  denotes  the  act  of  moistening  and 
cleansing  wounds  inflicted  by  stripes.  In  Eev.  i. 
5  it  denotes  the  cleansing  of  the  sinner's  conscience 
by  the  blood  of  Christ.  Porphyry  uses  it  to  denote 
the  purification  of  maidens  about  to  be  married,  by 
sprinkling  them  with  water  brought  in  pitchers 
for  the  purpose;  and  Basil  uses  it  to  denote  the 
purification  of  a  sick  man  by  sprinkling  with 
water,  anointing  with  oil,  and  invoking  upon  him 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Galen's  Lexicon  to  Hippocrates 
explains  it  as  meaning  "  not  only  to  wash  or  bathe, 
but  also  to  moisten,  foment,  pour,  or  sprinkle." 
If,  then,  the  command  was  simply  to  wash,  cleanse, 
or  purify  in  Jordan's  waters,  and  i^haptizo  denotes 
the  fulfillment  of  that  command,  the  point  is  settled 
that  baptizo  in  this  case  means  nothing  more  (and 
cannot  be  assigned  any  other  sense)  than  simply 
to  wash,  cleanse,  or  purify.  We  challenge  Dr.  Fuller 
to  confine  himself  to  this  instance  and  make  any 
thing  else  out  of  it. 

How  Naaman  executed  the  prophet's  command 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   SEPTUAGINT.  Ill 

is  of  no  importance.  He  may  have  gone  into  the 
stream  of  Jordan  and  literally  dipped  the  affected 
parts  which  he  expected  the  man  of  God  to  touch, 
or  he  may  have  sat  down  to  perform  the  enjoined 
ablution  upon  the  shore ;  but,  if  he  even  went  in 
and  totally  immersed  himself  seven  times,  it  does 
not  alter  the  case.  There  are  many  ways  of  wash- 
ing ;  and  it  was  still  a  baptism,  not  because  it  was 
an  immersion,  but  because  it  was  a  washing ;  that 
having  been  the  only  idea  in  the  prophet's  mind, 
and  the  only  idea  in  the  mind  of  the  historian 
when  he  said  that  Naaman  did  according  to  the 
prophet's  saying. 

And  we  are  also  fully  borne  out  in  this  view  by 
other  versions  of  the  Bible.  The  old  Latin  version 
of  Jerome,  made  more  than  fourteen  hundred  years 
ago,  has  lavo  where  the  Seventy  have  baptizo, — a 
word  which  means  simply  to  ivash,  without  pre- 
scribing the  mode,  and,  where  it  takes  in  any 
allusion  to  mode,  that  mode  is  to  besprinkle,  or 
to  apply  the  water  to  the  thing  laved.  It  also  has 
the  judicial  sense  of  expiate  and  clear.  A  total 
immersion  is  quite  outside  of  its  common  scope. 

The  German  Bible,  pronounced  one  of  the  best 
translations  that  have  ever  been  made,  has  taufen. 
If  Luther  had  thought  that  Naaman's  baptism  was 
a  total  immersion,  he  certainly  would  have  used 
the  word  versenken,  or  untertauchen. 

The  Douay  Bible  says,  "He  went  down  and 
WASHED  in  the  Jordan."  And  the  Coverdale  Bible, 
the  Geneva  Bible,  and  Matthew's  Bible,  all  have 
'^  washed"  instead  of  dipped. 

Now,  putting  all  these  things  together,  are  we 


112  TUB   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

not  fully  authorized  to  say  that,  so  far  as  baptizo 
applies  to  the  cleansing  of  Naaman,  it  no  more 
means  "a  total  immersion  and  nothing  else"  than  it 
means  sprinkling  and  nothing  else?  The  fact  is,  it 
means  neither,  but  simply  a  cleansing  or  purification. 
This  is  all  that  the  prophet  told  him  to  do;  and 
inspired  authority  tells  us  that  he  did  ''according 
to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God." 

A  third  passage  in  the  Septuagint  in  which 
baptizo  occurs  is  Judith  xii.  7,  where  it  is  said  of 
that  heroic  woman  that ''  she  went  out  in  the  night 
into  the  valley  of  Bethulia  and  washed  [ebaptizeto'] 
herself  in  a  fountain  [^paga, — spring~\  of  water  by  the 
camp.  And  when  she  came  out,  [Douay  version, 
when  she  came  up,']  she  besought  the  Lord  God  of 
Israel  to  direct  her  way."  What  does  this  mean? 
Dr.  Fuller  saj^s,  "  She  is  purifying  herself  for  a 
great  and  glorious  deed."  (P.  39.)  Exactly  so; 
and  that  is  precisely  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
this  text.  The  Douay  and  King  James  versions 
both  render  it  wash.  The  German  version  has  it 
wusch  sich, — washed  herself.  The  ancient  Syriac 
renders  it  by  a  term  signifying  to  wash.  It  means 
nothing  more  than  a  simple  ceremonial  cleansing 
or  purification.  The  heroine  is  contemplating  the 
deliverance  of  her  countr}'^  from  a  ruthless  invader. 
She  wishes  to  secure  the  help  of  Israel's  God.  And 
just  as  in  the  case  of  Telemachus,  Avith  waters  from 
the  hoary  sea  shed  over  his  hands, — 

"  The  royal  suppliant  to  Minerva  pray'd," — 

so  she  went  fasting  to  the  Bethulian  spring  to 
purify  herself  with  its  untainted  waters,  fresh  from 
their  source,  the  more  acceptably  to  come  before 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE   SEPTUAQINT.  113 

her  God.     All  idea  of  immersion  in  the  spring  is 
quite  out  of  the  question. 

But,  in  order  to  make  the  case  yield  to  his  tot- 
tering cause,  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  this  purification 
was  performed  "in  a  sequestered  valley."  Kot  so : 
it  was  performed  at  a  spring  "by  the  camp,"  or,  as 
it  is  still  stronger  in  the  Greek,  "  in  the  camp," — en 
ta  parembola.  He  says  that  it  was  done  in  the 
privacy  of  the  "night."  So  Curtis  repeats  : — "It 
was  by  night,  when  she  would  not  be  observed." 
But  this  cannot  be  proven.  The  word  nux  also 
means  evening.  The  German  version  has  it  abends; 
that  is,  evening.  And  the  account  stating  what 
occurred  after  the  purification  had  been  performed 
says  expressly,  in  the  ninth  verse,  "So  she  came  in 
clean,  and  remained  in  the  tent  until  she  did  eat  her 
meat  at  evening."  And  are  we  to  be  told  that  a 
beautiful  and  chaste  woman  like  Judith  went  out 
among  a  vast  army  of  rude  and  unoccupied  soldiers 
in  the  evening  before  supper-time,  and  completely 
immei'sed  herself  in  an  open  and  public  spring,  and 
that  for  three  successive  days  ?  Let  the  thinking 
judge  of  the  probability  of  such  a  story.  Dr. 
Arnald,  in  his  commentary  on  this  passage,  ex- 
presses the  greatest  astonishment  that  a  woman 
of  such  beauty  could  move  at  all  among  such  a 
camp  without  encountering  insult  and  violence. 
What,  then,  would  her  situation  have  been  if  we 
add  the  bathing  of  her  naked  person  by  immersion 
at  nightfall  in  a  spring  to  which  the  soldiers  doubt- 
less came  to  quench  their  thirst?  The  thing 
cannot  be :  and  so  baptizo  cannot  here  mean  to 
immerse  and  nothing  else. 

10* 


114  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

But  Dr.  Fuller  can't  give  it  up.  The  passage 
must  be  made  to  give  haptizo  the  meaning  of  im- 
merse, even  though  he  should  have  to  interpolate 
the  record.  And  we  here,  publicly,  boldly,  and 
with  a  full  understanding  of  what  we  are  about, 
charge  interpolation  upon  him.  Whether  he  has 
done  it  ignorantly  or  intentionally  is  not  for  us  to 
decide. 

On  page  40  of  his  book  he  positively  asserts  that, 
"As  if  to  leave  no  doubt^  it  is  expressly  said  that  she 
CAME  OUT  OF  THE  WATER."  He  givcs  quotation 
marks  and  all,  to  have  us  believe  that  he  has  lit- 
erally transferred  these  words  from  the  record  to 
his  pages.  But  we  utterly,  peremptorily,  and 
without  qualification  deny  that  there  is  any  thing 
anywhere  in  this  account,  either  in  Hebrew,  in 
Greek,  in  Latin,  in  German,  or  in  English,  that  says 
aught  about  coming  out  of  "  the  water."  The  only 
thing  that  affords  even  the  remotest  hint  in  that 
direction  lies  in  the  English  phrase  "  and  when  she 
came  out  she  besought  the  Lord."  But  a  theory 
which  interprets  this  as  referring  to  the  water,  can- 
not stand  for  a  moment.  It  is  nowhere  said  that 
she  ever  went  into  the  water;  and  it  is  unnatu- 
rally violent  and  altogether  gratuitous  to  say  that 
her  coming  out  means  a  coming  "out  of  the  water." 
What  she  came  out  of  was,  of  course,  what  sho 
went  into;  and  it  is  expressly  said  that  she 
"went  into  the  valley  of  BethuUa."  Her  coming 
out  was  therefore  a  coming  out  of  "the  valley 
of  Bethulia." 

The  Vulgate  has  et  ut  ascendebat, — and  as  she 
went  up,  or,  as  soon  as  she  went  up, — she  prayed. 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    SEPTUAQINT.  115 

The  allusion  cannot  be  to  any  thing  but  her  going 
up  to  her  tent. 

The  Septuagint  has  kai  hos  aneba,  edeeto.  Aneba 
is  one  form  of  the  same  woi"d  used  by  Xenophon 
to  denote  a  military  expedition, — certainly  a  very 
different  thing  from  an  emersion,  from  a  plunge  in 
the  water.  It  signifies  a  going  up  from  one  place 
to  another.  It  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to 
denote  Christ's  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  going  up  into 
the  mountain  to  pray,  going  up  into  the  temple, 
the  going  up  of  the  disciples  to  the  feast,  Peter's 
going  up  upon  the  house-top,  and  so  on.  Homer 
uses  it  again  and  again  to  denote  the  act  of  pene- 
trating into  the  interior  of  a  country  and  of  ad- 
vancing toward  a  capital.  And  we  avow  that 
before  any  man  can  find  emersion  in  it  he  will  first 
have  to  put  it  there.  Its  plainest  and  primary 
meaning  is,  the  going  up  from  one  place  to  another; 
and,  as  used  in  the  passage  before  us,  it  can  mean 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  going  up  of  Judith 
from  the  fountain  where  she  purified  herself  to  the 
tent  in  which  she  reposed  in  the  camp  of  Holo- 
fernes. 

And  the  German  version,  if  possible,  is  still  more 
conclusive.  It  cuts  off  even  the  last  lingering 
shadow  of  possibility  that  the  phrase  might  per- 
haps refer  to  a  coming  out  of  the  water.  It  ren- 
ders it  all  by  the  adverb  darnach, — afterwards. 
Having  purified  herself  at  the  fountain  "by  the 
camp,  aftenoardSf'  i.e.  after  her  purification  had 
been  completed,  and  she  was  again  on  her  way  to 
her  allotted  place,  "  afterwards  she  prayed  to  the 


116  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

Lord."  The  thing  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  further 
illustration. 

The  fourth  and  only  remaining  passage  from  the 
Septuagint  to  be  examined,  in  which  baptizo  occurs, 
is  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  25.  "  He  that  washeth  [bap- 
tizomenos]  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead  body, 
if  he  touch  it  again,  what  availeth  his  (loutro) 
washing?  " 

Here  we  have  two  different  words  referring  to 
precisely  the  same  thing,  and  which,  so  far  as  this 
text  is  concerned,  are  necessarily  exact  synonyms 
of  each  other.  We  have  already  proven  that  louo, 
one  of  the  words  here  used,  denotes  the  general 
idea  of  washing  in  the  sense  of  purification.  It  is 
therefore  a  sufficient  injunction  upon  Dr.  Fuller's 
theory  of  the  meaning  of  haptizo  to  know  that  the 
Seventy  here  use  it  as  the  exact  synonym  of  louo. 
For  as  louo  is  never  used  to  denote  ''a  total  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else,"  so  baptizo  cannot  mean 
"a  total  immersion  and  nothing  else"  where  it  is 
used  interchangeably  with  louo. 

But  we  go  further.  The  son  of  Sirach  is  talking 
about  purification  from  the  contaminating  touch 
of  a  dead  body.  He  calls  that  purification  a  bap- 
tism.  And  we  now  assert  that  the  vital,  prominent, 
and  essential  part  of  that  purification  was  per- 
formed by  sprinkling,  and  by  sprinkling  alone.  Does 
any  one  doubt  it,  let  him  read  the  nineteenth 
chapter  of  Numbers,  where  God  himself  lays  down 
the  law  in  this  case: — "And  whosoever  toucheth 
one  that  is  slain  with  the  sword  in  the  open  field, 
or  a  dead  body,  or  a  bone  of  a  man,  or  a  grave, 
shall  be  unclean  seven  days.     And  for  an  unclean 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   SEPTUAGINT.  117 

person  they  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt 
heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and  running  water 
shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  person 
shall  take  hyssop  and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle 
IT  upon  him  that  toucheth  a  hone,  or  one  slain,  or  one 
dead,  or  a  grave,  and  the  clean  person  shall  sprbvkle 
upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day  and  on  the  seventh 
day."  This  is  the  statute  of  God  for  the  purification 
of  a  man  defiled  by  touching  the  dead,  and  the  whole 
of  it.  The  succeeding  verses  quoted  by  Dr.  Fuller, 
about  washing  clothes  and  bathing,  refer  to  the 
clean  person  who  does  the  sprinkling,  and  not  to 
the  one  defiled  for  whom  the  sprinkling  was 
done.  Let  the  reader  compare  the  nineteenth 
with  the  twenty-first  verse,  where  this  bathing  is 
expressly  refen-ed  to  the  administrator  and  not 
to  the  subject,  and  he  will  see  the  truth  of  our 
statement.  Josephus,  in  a  professed  and  minute 
description  of  this  rite,  (Ant.  b.  4,  c.  4,  sec.  6,) 
Bays  nothing  about  washing  or  bathing  as  a  part 
of  it.  Philo,  in  a  similar  passage,  speaks  only  of 
sprinkling.  Or,  if  any  still  doubt,  we  bring  the 
testimony  of  Paul,  who  says  expresslj^  that  it 
was  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean  that 
sanctified  to  the  purification  of  the  flesh :  Heb.  ix.  13. 
Here,  then,  is  a  purification  from  which  every 
thing  like  immersion  is  utterly  excluded, — nay,  in 
which  sprinkling  is  the  mode  explicitly  commanded 
by  God  himself,  "  The  question,  then,  comes  to 
this  dilemma,"  says  Mr.  Hall:  ''either  the  Jews 
had  abandoned  the  mode  of  purifying  from  a 
dead  body,  as  specifically  and  minutely  pointed 
out  by  God,  or  here  was  a  baptism  by  sprinkling." 


118  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

The  demonstration  is  therefore  complete,  that 
baptizo,  as  used  in  the  Septuagint,  does  not  denote 
'*  a  total  immersion  and  nothing  else,"  but  has  as- 
signed to  it  that  nobler  and  higher  sense  for  which 
it  was  chosen  to  designate  the  foundation  ordi- 
nance of  Christianity, — the  sense  of  purification. 

How  remarkable  that,  at  the  very  moment  we 
begin  to  touch  upon  ground  even  though  but 
remotely  connected  with  Christianity,  the  word 
that  is  always  used  to  denote  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  at  once  assumes  a  settled  religious  sense, 
from  which,  when  applied  to  this  sacrament,  as 
we  shall  see,  it  never  departs. 


CHAPTEE  X. 

BAPTIZO   IN   THE   FATHERS. 


There  is  still  another  department  of  Greek 
writing,  outside  of  the  New  Testament,  the  ex- 
amination of  which  is  particularly  pertinent  to  this 
controversy.  We  refer  to  the  Christian  Greek 
authors  and  the  patristic  literature.  The  Fathers 
for  the  most  part  understood  and  spoke  the  Greek 
language,  and  were  familiar  with  the  Christian 
acceptation  of  Greek  terms.  If  they  used  baptizo 
in  a  sense  different  from  mere  immersion,  we  may 
be  assured  that  immersion  is  not  its  Christian 
meaning. 

We   are  not  now  concerning  ourselves  about 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE   FATHERS.  119 

their  frequent  practice  of  administering  baptism  by- 
immersion.  Dr.  Carson  agrees  that  "the  author- 
ity of  the  Fathers  on  this  question  is  not  their 
practice,  but  their  use  of  the  word.  On  their  prac- 
tice," says  he,  "  I  should  not  have  the  least  reli- 
ance on  any  question."  (P.  472.)  We  agree  that  it 
was  very  much  the  habit  in  their  day  to  baptize 
by  immersion.  Hence,  if  we  can  show  from  their 
writings  that  they  understood  and  used  the  word 
baptism  in  a  sense  other  than  that  of  immersion, 
that  showing  must  he  particularly  strong  against 
our  Baptist  friends,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the 
testimony,  to  some  extent,  of  immersionists  as 
well  as  Grecians. 

Dr.  Carson  says  of  the  Fathers  that  "  they  knew 
the  meaning  of  the  language  which  they  spoke. 
...  To  suppose  that  persons  who  spoke  the 
Greek  language  might  understand  their  [the 
apostles']  words  in  a  sense  different  from  that 
in  which  they  used  them  would  be  to  charge  the 
Scripture  as  not  being  a  revelation.  Whatever 
was  the  sense  in  which  the  apostles  used  the 
word  must  have  been  known  to  all  who  heard 
them  or  read  their  writings.''  (P.  473.)  To  the 
writings  of  these  earlier  and  mostly  Greek  Chris- 
tian authors,  then,  we  carry  our  inquiry. 

Dr.  Carson  maintains  that  "there  is  not  an 
instance  in  all  the  Fathers  in  which  baptizo  or  any 
of  its  derivatives  are  used  except  to  signify  im- 
merse;" that,  "without  exception,  they  used  the 
word  always  for  immersion."  This  he  asserts  as 
a  scholar  claiming  to  be  "acquainted  with  the 
Fathers."    How  far  this  scholarship  and  acquaint- 


120  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

ance  go  in  this  department,  and  what  his  sweep- 
ing assertion  is  worth,  we  shall  see  presently. 

Dr.  Fuller  waxes  very  bold,  and  defies  us  to  pro- 
duce a  single  instance  in  which  baptizo  means 
aught  but  immerse.  We  accept  his  challenge.  He 
shall  have  the  instance.  He  has  it  already.  But 
we  will  multiply  it  for  him  by  the  production  of 
passages,  not  from  the  poets  and  philosophers  of 
heathendom,  but  from  those  who  knew  both  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Greek  language,  in  which  it  is 
wholly  impossible  to  assign  to  this  word  the 
meaning  of  "immerse  and  nothing  else." 

The  first  passage  we  adduce  is  from  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  p.  387,  Lugduni  Batav.,  1616.  He 
is  here  speaking  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  He 
traces  it  even  in  the  lustrative  rites  of  the  heathen 
world.  He  says  that  there  is  "  eikoon  baptismatos, 
—a  picture,  image,  representation  of  baptism, 
which  has  been  handed  down  from  Moses  to  the 
poets;  as,  for  example,  < Penelope,  having  \Jiu- 
draino]  moistened  or  washed  herself,  and  having  on. 
clean  apparel,  prays.'  (Odyss.  iv.  759.)  '  Tele- 
machus,  having  \nipto']  washed  his  hands  in  the 
hoary  sea,  prayed  to  Minerva.'  (Odyss.  ii.  261.) 
This  was  the  Jewish  custom  \hoos  baptizesthai']  to 
be  baptized  in  this  way,  even  often  upon  the  bed  or 
couch." 

This  is  a  passage  of  great  strength,  and  has 
given  to  the  Baptist  champions  no  little  trouble 
since  it  was  first  broached  by  President  Beecher. 
Let  the  reader  scrutinize  it  well.  Homer  says 
that  Penelope  moistened  or  washed  herself  The 
word  is  hudraino,  which  conveys  no  idea  of  mode. 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    FATHERS.  121 

The  Greek  language  abundantly  sanctions  its 
application  to  pouring  or  affusion.  And  this  wet- 
ting or  washing  Clement  pronounces  eikoon  bap- 
tismatos,  "  the  image  of  baptism."  He  must  needs, 
therefore,  have  considered  baptizo  no  more  than 
hudraino, — merely  a  religious  washing,  no  matter 
how  performed. 

Again :  Homer  says  that  Telemachus  washed  his 
hands  for  prayer.     Pope's  version  of  it  is  this: — 

"  There,  as  the  toaters  o'er  Ma  hands  he  shed, 
The  royal  suppliant  to  Minerva  pray'd." 

The  original  word  is  nipto,  which  expresses  an  act 
limited  to  the  hands  or  feet.  Beza  denies  that  it 
ever  applies  to  the  whole  body.  The  idea  which  it 
conveys  is  simply  that  of  cleansing  the  part  by 
the  use  of  water,  poui-ed,  sprinkled,  or  employed 
in  any  other  mode.  Pope  says  that  it  here  means 
poured  or  shed  upon.  The  hands  are  specifically 
named.  And  this  religious  lustration,  which  con- 
sisted in  the  mere  pouring  of  water  upon  the 
hands,  Clement  calls  eikoon  baptismatos,  "  the  image 
of  baptism."  There  was  no  immersion  in  this 
case,  and,  beyond  all  question,  no  total  immersion; 
and  yet,  according  to  this  Father's  sense  of  the 
word,  it  was  a  likeness  of  baptism.  By  authority 
of  Clement,  then,  baptism  is  a  religious  lustration, 
but  not  necessarily  an  immersion. 

But  this  is  by  no  means  the  whole  strength  of 
the  passage,  Clement  says  that  it  was  the  custom 
of  the  Jews  (hoos)  in  like  manner,  in  the  same  xoay, 
TO  BE  BAPTIZED.  The  Jcwish  lustrations,  then, 
which  consisted  in  mere  washings  and  hand-wash- 
11 


122  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

ings,  by  affusion,  sprinkling,  circumfusion,  as  well 
as  any  other  mode,  were  real  baptisms,  and  so 
called  by  this  Greek  Father.  Is  it  not  puerile, 
then,  for  any  man  to  assert  in  the  face  of  such 
facts  that  baptizo  in  the  Greek  language  "always 
means  immerse  and  has  no  other  meaning"? 

Yet  further :  Clement  declares  that  it  was  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  to  be  baptized  in  this  way, 
(kai)  and,  or  even,  oftentimes  upon  their  bed  or 
couch  (epi  koitae).  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to 
recline  on  couches  during  meals,  the  same  being 
often  used  to  sleep  on.  These  couches  were  ordi- 
narily large  enough  to  hold  from  three  to  five 
persons.  And  it  was  perhaps  when  reclining 
thus  at  meals  that  the  custom  was  to  undergo  a 
process  of  lustration,  which  Clement  here  calls 
eing  baptized  upon  their  couch.  And  are  we  to  be 
told  that  four  or  five  men,  upon  a  couch  at  dinner, 
were  at  times  immersed  while  taking  their  meals? 
Are  we  to  imagine  pulleys  fixed  over  the  various 
couches  in  the  dining-room,  with  ropes  attached 
to  the  corners,  and  a  baptistery  under  the  floor, 
with  trap-doors  opening  under  the  suspended 
guests,  to  let  couches,  men,  and  all  down  under 
the  water  as  they  pi-oceeded  to  eat ! 

But  Dr.  Carson  and  Dr.  Hague  wish  to  know 
where  we  learn  that  koitae  is  a  dinner-couch.  They 
say,  "it  is  a  bed  for  sleeping  on."  Very  well: 
only  so  much  the  worse  for  them.  Clement  says 
they  were  baptized  upon  their  koitae;  and  to  be 
immersed  while  lying  on  their  bed  for  sleep  is  Still 
further  out  of  the  question  than  immersion  wliilo 
eating  dinner.     A  very  comfortable   night's  rest 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE   FATHERS.  123 

would  they  have  after  such  a  service!  Perhaps 
Dr.  Fuller  would  also  call  this  "delightfully  re- 
freshing" ! 

But,  say  our  Baptist  friends,  epi  koitae  does  not 
mean  upon  a  bed,  but  "on  account  of  a  bed;"  "bap- 
tized on  account  of  a  bed"  !  Ah,  and  now  it  is 
our  turn  to  ask,  Where  did  they  learn  that? 
Hervetus,  in  commenting  upon  this  passage  in 
Clement,  says,  "The  Jews  washed  themselves,  not 
only  at  sacrifices,  but  also  at  feasts;  and  this  is  the 
reason  why  Clement  says  that  they  were  purified 
or  washed  upo7i  a  couch,  that  is,  a  dining-couch  or 
triclinium."  And  no  one  will  dare  to  deny  that 
the  original,  primary,  and  pervading  sense  of  epi 
is  upon,  on,  in.  To  translate  it  "o»  account  of"  is 
far-fetched,  quite  beyond  the  ordinary  range  of 
its  meaning,  and  destructive  of  the  sense  of  the 
passage,  except  by  supplying  an  idea  the  most 
foreign  to  the  whole  drift  of  Clement's  remarks. 
In  the  corrected  Latin  Syllburg  edition  of  Clemens, 
Hervetus  renders  it  "m  lecta," — in  or  upon  a 
resting-place,  couch,  bed,  or  dining-sofa.  And 
Professor  Wilson,  of  the  Eoyal  College,  Belfast, 
remarks  that  "epi  koitae  suggests  so  distinctly  the 
relation  of  place,  that  to  prefer  a  different  meaning 
appears  very  like  going  out  of  one's  way  to  serve 
a  purpose." 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  then,  to  be  bap- 
tized on,  in,  upon,  their  dining-couches  or  beds. 
Was  this  done  by  total  immersion?  The  thing  is 
impossible.  How,  then,  was  it  done?  AVe  reply, 
b}''  sprinkling,  circumfusion,  or  hand-washing ;  and 
we  say  so  by  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  them- 


124  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

selves.  (See  2  Kings  iii.  11;  Matt.  xv.  2;  Mark  vii 
3;  John  ii.  6.)  Immersion  is  absolutely  excluded. 
Yet  Clement,  who  "knew  the  meaning  of  the  lan- 
guage which  he  spoke,"  calls  it  baptizing.  If  our 
Baptist  friends  can  bring  a  stronger  j)assage  in 
proof  of  their  understanding  of  haptizo  than  this 
against  them,  it  yet  remains  to  be  produced. 

Our  next  quotation  is  from  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
on  Isaiah  iv.  4,  vol.  ii.,  Paris,  1538.  This  Father 
speaks  of  the  Jewish  rite  of  sprinkling  an  unclean 
person  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  as  a  baptism. 
His  words  are,  "We  have  been  baptized,  not  with 
mere  water,  nor  yet  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer, 
but  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  This  passage 
makes  the  baptism  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  as 
much  a  baptism  as  the  baptism  by  water.  "What 
then  was  the  baptism  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer? 
"Was  it  an  immersion?  We  have  the  authority  of 
God  that  it  was  not.  See  Heb.  ix.  13 :  "The  ashes 
of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh."  The  statute  of  God 
on  the  subject  was,  "They  shall  take  of  the  ashes 
of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and 
running  water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel ;  and 
a  clean  person  shall  take  hj^ssop,  and  dip  it  in  the 
water,  and  sprinkle  it  vpon  him  that  touched  a 
bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave."  By 
the  highest  possible  authority,  then,  the  purifica- 
tion by  the  ashes  of  the  heifer  was  a  purification 
by  sprinkling.  It  was  not  an  immersion.  But 
Cyril  says  it  was  a  baptism.  According  to  this 
Greek  Father,  then,  immersion  was  not  the  mean- 
ing of  baptizo.     Its  import  is  met  by  a  religious 


BAFriZO   IN   THE   FATHERS.  127 

See  Justin's  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  p.  164, 
London,  1772.  He  is  speaking  of  the  Jewish 
rites  and  ceremonies  as  inadequate  to  purify  a  man 
from  sin.  He  is  holding  up  an  inward  "washing 
of  repentance,"  as  opposed  to  any  outward  cere- 
monial cleansings.  He  says,  "What  is  the  use  of 
that  baptism  which  purifies  the  flesh  and  body 
alone?  Be  baptized  as  to  your  soul,  from  anger 
and  from  covetousness,  from  envy  and  from  hatred, 
and,  lo !  your  body  is  pure."  Now,  would  he  have 
us  figure  to  ourselves  a  man  immersing  his  soul  for 
the  purification  of  his  body?  Can  we  conceive  of 
a  man  immersing  from  a  thing? — from  anger  and 
covetousness,  from  envy  and  hatred?  We  can 
easily  understand  how  a  man  may  cleanse  his  soul 
to  make  his  body  clean,  and  how  he  may  be 
cleansed  from  vice;  but  immersion  will  in  no  way 
fit  to  this  passage.  There  is  no  possible  room  for 
it.  Cleansing  or  purification  is  here  the  certain, 
fixed,  and  only  sense  of  baptizo,  and  that  as  given 
by  a  man  who  understood  both  the  Scripture  and 
the  Greek  language. 

In  another  passage,  speaking  of  the  purifications 
copied  by  the  heathen  from  the  divine  ordinances, 
he  says,  "The  demons,  hearing  of  this  washing 
[loutron,  religious  cleansing]  proclaimed  b}'  the 
prophet,  caused  those  entering  into  their  temples 
to  sprinkle  themselves."  Now,  if  the  demons  were 
thus  imitating  God's  washing,  as  Justin  affirms, 
and  that  divine  purifying  was  a  washing  by  immer- 
sion, how  is  it  that  they  caused  their  worshipers 
"<o  sprinkle  themselves"  ?  Is  sprinkling  a  copy  of 
immersion?      The   demons  once   proclaimed   the 


128  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

divine  authority  of  Jesus.  They  here  proclaim 
that  sprinkling  is  God's  cleansing  rite. 

Again:  Dr.  Carson  admits  that  Justin  "some- 
times speaks  of  circumcision  as  a  baptism."  Was 
circumcision  an  immersion?  "Who  will  dare  to 
affirm  it?  It  was  a  bloody  rite  of  purgation, — a 
sign  of  divine  acceptance, — a  ceremonial  cleansing; 
and  for  this  reason  alone  could  it  be  called  a  bap- 
tism. And  when  this  Father  calls  it  a  baptism,  it 
is  unanswerable  proof  that  he  attached  to  baptizo 
the  idea  of  a  religious  purification,  to  the  exclusion 
of  immersion.  Yet  Mr.  Carson  can  assert  that 
"Justin  uses  the  word  in  the  sense  of  immersion, — 
never  in  any  other  sense"  !  How  long  will  Chris- 
tian people  continue  to  be  led  astray  by  such 
guides? 

We  turn  next  to  Tertullian,  to  inquire  what 
meaning  ho  attached  to  baptizo.  De  Baptismo,  p. 
257,  Paris,  1634,  he  has  this  passage: — "At  the 
sacred  rites  of  Isis,  or  Mithra,  they  are  initiated 
by  a  washing;  they  carry  out  their  gods  with 
washings;  they  expiate  villas,  houses,  temples, 
and  whole  cities,  by  sprinkling  with  water  carried 
around.  Certainly  they  are  purified  in  the  Appo- 
linarian  and  Eleusinian  i-ites;  and  they  say  that 
they  do  this  to  obtain  regeneration  and  to  escape 
the  punishment  of  their  perjuries.  Also,  among 
the  ancients,  whoever  had  stained  himself  with 
murder  expiated  himself  with  purifying  water. 
In  view  of  these  things,  we  see  the  zeal  of  the 
devil  in  rivalling  the  things  of  God,  inasmuch  as 
he  thus  also  practices  baptism  among  his  own 
people."      Here  we    have   a   description   of  the 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   FATHERS.  125 

cleansing  in  which  the  specific  mode  was  sprinkling. 
The  same  author  has  other  passages  to  the  same 
eifect. 

Ambrose,  vol.  ii.  p.  333,  Paris,  1609,  furnishes 
another  instance  of  the  use  of  baptizo  to  denote  a 
religious  cleansing  without  immersion.  "For  he 
who  is  baptized,  both  according  to  the  law  and 
according  to  the  gospel,  is  made  clean, — according 
to  the  law,  i?i  that  Moses,  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop, 
SPRINKLED  the  blood  of  a  lamb."  There  was  then  a 
baptism  according  to  the  Jewish  law.  Was  it  an 
immersion  ?  How  would  it  read  to  say  "  immersed 
according  to  the  law,  ia  that  Moses,  with  a  bunch 
of  hyssop,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  a  lamb"?  Is 
sprinkling  an  immersion?  By  no  means.  But 
Ambrose  says  it  is  a  baptism.  Hence  we  add  his 
authority  to  that  of  Clement  and  Cyril,  that  bap- 
tism and  immersion  are  not  synonymous. 

The  same  Father  furnishes  us  with  other  like 
instances.  In  vol.  i.  p.  356,  he  calls  the  application 
of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  crucifixion  and  death, 
baptism;  that  is,  a  moral  cleansing,  forgiveness, 
purification.  His  words  are  as  follows : — "  Unde  sit 
BAPTisMA  nisi  de  cruce  Christi,  de  morte  Christif" 
"Whence  is  purgation  except  from  the  cross  of 
Christ,  from  the  death  of  Christ?"  Can  baptism 
mean  immersion  here?  Is  there  any  sense  in 
talking  about  "immersion  from  the  cross  and 
death  of  Christ"  ?  Baptisma  here  means  cleansing, 
to  the  utter  exclusion  of  all  idea  of  immersion. 

Again,  Ambrose  says,  (Apol.  David,  sec.  59.) 
"He  who  desired  to  be  purified  with  a  typical  bap- 
tism was  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  a  lamb  by 


126  THE    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop."  Was  sprinkling 
immersion f  Was  sprinkling  a  type  of  immersion? 
Neither;  but  sprinkling  was  a  baptism,  and  sprink- 
ling the  blood  under  the  law  was  a  type  of  baptism 
under  the  gospel.  How  ridiculous,  then,  to  insist 
that  baptism  is  "immersion  and  nothing  else"! 

In  vol.  ii.  p.  355,  the  same  Father,  taking  a  gene- 
ral survey  of  the  Jewish  and  heathen  absolutions, 
thus  sums  up  the  whole  matter.  "There  are 
many  kinds  of  purifications,  [baptismatum,']  but 
the  apostle  proclaims  one  baptism.  Why?  There 
are  heathen  purifyings,  [baptismata,']  but  they  are 
not  pui'ifieations  [baptismata^.  Washings  they 
are;  purifications  [baptismata']  they  cannot  be. 
The  body  is  washed,  but  sin  is  not  washed  away; 
nay,  in  that  washing  sin  is  contracted.  There 
were  also  Jewish  purifyings,  [baptismata  j]  some 
superfluous,  others  typical."  Why  were  these 
Jewish  and  heathen  baptisms  no  baptisms  P  Be- 
cause "sin  is  not  washed  away"  in  them.  But 
wliether  immersion  washes  away  sin  or  not,  is  it 
not  still  an  immersion?  Could  Ambrose  have 
been  guilty  of  saying,  "Immersions  they  are,  but 
immersions  they  cannot  be"  ?  Does  not  every  one 
see  at  a  glance  that  here  the  word  baptism,  in  the 
very  same  sentence,  has  more  than  one  meaning 
and  must  be  rendered  washing,  purification? 

Let  us  look  next  at  some  instances  from  Justin 
Martyr.  Dr.  Carson  saj-s,  "Justin  uses  the  word 
in  the  sense  of  immersion  whenever  he  does  use 
it, — never  in  any  other  sense."  Let  us  see,  then, 
what  sort  of  reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  this 
dogmatizer  of  Tubbermore. 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   FATHERS.  129 

various  lustrations  and  expiations  performed  by 
the  devil's  people,  not  only  upon  their  own  bodies, 
but  also  upon  "villas,  houses,  temples,  and  whole 
cities,"  and  that  "6?/  sprinkling  with  water  carried 
aroujid."  And  yet  Tertullian  sums  it  all  up  as 
the  devil's  ''baptism,"  \baptismum.']  Will  any 
one  have  the  eifrontery  to  say  that  he  meant 
immersion  ? 

Hear  what  President  Beecher  has  said  upon  this 
passage.  "Tertullian  here  traces  the  purifier, 
water,  through  all  its  uses  in  the  heathen  world  in 
purifying,  whether  by  sprinkling,  or  in  any  other 
way,  for  absohition,  or  for  cleansing.  And  he 
sums  it  all  up  as  the  devil's  baptism.  Words  do- 
noting  sjirinkling,  or  purification,  or  absolution, 
pervade  the  whole  passage,  as  lavacrura,  lavatio, 
aspergio,  purgo,  expio,  abluo,  emundo,  absolvo, 
diluo.  But  no  word  occurs  denoting  of  necessity 
immersion.  Dr.  Carson  may  refer  to  tingo.  I 
know  that  he  has  said,  in  his  work  on  baptism, 
(p.  55,)  'Tingo  expresses  appropriately  dipping 
and  dyeing,  and  these  only.'  Dr.  Carson  says  this 
with  his  usual  accuracy.  Ovid  was  of  a  diflPerent 
opinion.  Speaking  of  the  ocean  in  a  storm,  ho 
says,  'videtur  aspergine  tingere  nubes,'  (Met.  xi. 
497,  498.)  Did  Ovid  mean  that  'the  ocean  seems 
to  dye  the  clouds  with  spray,'  or  'to  immerse 
them  with  spray'?  He  means  plainly  'to  sprinkle 
them  with  spray.'  He  also  uses  the  expression, 
'tingere  corpus  aqua  sparsa.'  (Fast.  iv.  790.  See 
Gesner  on  tingo.)  Does  this  mean  'to  color  or  to 
immerse  the  body  by  sprinkled  water'?  And  what 
mean  the  common  expressions,  tingi  nardo,  tingi 


130  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Pallade,  tingi  oleo?  Is  oil  a  coloring  substance? 
or  was  it  customary  to  be  dipped  in  oil?  We  read 
of  anointing  with  oil,  or  of  pouring  oil  on  the 
head.  Who  has  recorded  the  custom  of  dipping 
in  oil?  Hilarius  too,  on  Acts  xix.  4,  speaking  of 
a  spurious  baptism,  says,  'non  tincti,  sed  sordidate 
sunt.'  Here  the  antithesis  demands  of  us  to 
translate,  'They  were  not  purified,  but  polluted.' 
Tingo,  then,  means  to  sprinkle,  to  wet  or  moisten, 
to  wash,  to  purifyj  and  in  reference  to  baptism 
this  last  is  its  appropriate  sense.  No  word,  then, 
occurs,  denoting  immersion.  All  kinds  of  purifi- 
cation and  expiation  are  spoken  of,  including  pro- 
minently those  by  sprinkling,  and  all  are  summed 
up  as  the  devil's  baptism,  i.e.  the  devil's  purification 
or  absolution,  and  the  closing  contrast  rests  for  all 
its  force  on  assigning  to  the  word  this  sense." 
(Baptism,  its  Import  and  Modes^  pp.  165,  166.) 

So  again  Tertullian  (p.  357)  says,  speaking  of 
the  water  and  the  blood,  "  Hos  duo  baptismos  de 
vulnere  perfossi  lateris  emisit,"  "  these  two  baptisms 
he  poured  forth  from  the  wound  of  his  pierced 
side."  Did  he  mean  to  say  that  Christ  poured 
forth  two  immersions  from  his  wounded  side,  or 
that  he  sent  forth  two  purifications  ? 

We  therefore  set  down  Tertullian,  along  with 
Clement,  Cyril,  Ambrose,  and  Justin  Martyr,  as  a 
clear  and  decisive  witness  that,  in  its  scriptural 
and  Christian  sense,  baptizo  does  not  mean  mere 
immersion,  but  a  religious  washing,  cleansing,  or 
purification,  even  to  the  exclusion  of  immersion. 

We  turn  next  to  Origen.  In  his  Seventh  Homily 
on  the  6th  of  Judges,  he  says,  "  The  outpouring  of 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    FATHERS.  131 

his  [Christ's]  blood  is  denominated  a  baptism." 
Who  ever  denominated  the  outpouring  of  Christ's 
blood  an  immersion?  Would  he  not  be  denomi- 
nated a  fool  who  should  apply  to  it  such  a  term? 
It  was  not  an  immersion.  It  neither  immersed 
Christ  nor  anybody  else.  Yet  Origen  approves 
of  its  being  called  a  baptism.  It  was  an  expiation, 
a  purgation  of  sin,  a  moral  and  judicial  cleansing; 
and  this  is  what  was  here  meant  by  the  word 
baptism. 

The  same  Father,  in  his  notes  on  Matt.  xx.  21, 
22,  says  again,  "  Martyrdom  is  rightfully  called  a 
baptism."  But  is  martyrdom  a  fluid  in  which  one 
can  be  dipped?  Can  we  conceive  of  an  immersion 
in  martyrdom?  The  ancients  believed  in  a  puri- 
fication by  martyrdom.  They  considered  death 
endured  for  Christ  an  entire  purgation  of  any 
defects  or  sins  that  may  have  attached  to  the 
man  before  his  death.  They  regarded  it  as  a 
cleansing,  and  hence  called  it  a  baptisin.  They 
never  dreamed  of  regarding  it  as  an  immersion. 

Again:  in  John  i.  25,  the  Jews  are  represented 
as  asking  the  forerunner  of  our  Lord,  *'  Why  bap- 
tizest  thou,  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor 
Elias,  neither  that  prophet?"  And  the  question  is 
thus  referred  to  by  Origen  in  his  comment: — 
"What  makes  you  think  that  Elias  when  he 
comes  will  baptize,  who,  in  Ahab's  time,  did  not 
[himself]  baptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which 
required  washing  in  order  to  be  burnt  up,  when 
the  Lord  should  reveal  himself  by  fire?  For  he 
ordered  the  priests  to  do  that  [i.e.  baptize  the 
wood]  not  only  once,   for  he   says,   'Do   it  the 


132  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

second  time.' "  Now,  what  was  the  transaction 
here  referred  to?  We  have  it  in  1  Kings  xviii. : — 
"And  Elijah  took  twelve  stones,  and  with  the 
stones  he  built  an  altar;  and  he  made  a  trench 
about  the  altar.  And  he  put  the  wood  in  order 
[on  the  altar,  of  course],  and  cut  the  bullock  in 
pieces,  and  laid  him  on  the  wood,  and  said.  Fill 
four  barrels  with  water,  and  pour  it  on  the  burnt 
sacrifice,  and  on  the  wood.  And  he  said.  Do  it 
the  second  time.  And  they  did  it  the  second 
time.  And  he  said,  Do  it  the  third  time.  And 
they  did  it  the  third  time.  And  the  water  ran 
round  about  the  altar."  This  is  the  entire  and 
minute  account.  And  what  was  it  that  Elijah 
commanded  the  priests  to  do?  The  answer  is 
plain: — to  pour  out  water  upon  the  bullock,  on  the 
wood,  on  the  altar,  which  was  built  of  twelve 
stones  and  surrounded  with  a  trench.  The  mode 
prescribed  was  pourmg  upon,  and  the  circumstances 
demonstrate  that  the  result  could  not  have  been 
immersion.  Yet  Origen  pronounces  it  a  hnptism. 
We  add  Prof  Wilson's  remarks  upon  this  fact: — 

"  Let  it  be  observed,  we  here  come  into  contact 
with  the  most  learned  Greek  Father,  and  one  of 
the  most  accomplished  Biblical  scholars  of  the 
ancient  Church.  To  tax  such  a  witness  with  igno- 
rance of  the  circumstances  embraced  in  his  evi- 
dence, or  of  the  language  in  whose  varied  litera- 
ture he  stood  so  pre-eminent,  would  be  extreme 
and  unaccountable  fatuity.  Origen  knew,  as  well 
as  any  modern  Baptist  knows,  that  Elijah  com- 
manded his  attendants  to  fill  the  barrels  with 
water  and  pour  it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice  and  on  the 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   FATHERS.  133 

wood.  The  author  of  the  Hexapla  had  carefully- 
studied  his  Bible,  and  entered  profoundly  and 
minutely  into  its  different  peculiarities  of  thought 
and  forms  of  expression.  How  invaluable,  then, 
is  the  testimony  when  a  writer  of  such  undoubted 
attainments  identifies  the  command  to  pour  water 
upon  the  wood  with  a  command  to  baptize!  Elijah 
did  not  himself  baptize,  for  he  ordered  the  priests 
to  do  that.  To  do  what?  To  pour  water  on  the 
wood  upon  the  altar;  and  this,  in  the  estimation 
of  the  most  distinguished  Greek  Father,  was  bap- 
tism! Comment  may  succeed  in  diluting,  but  is 
incompetent  to  strengthen,  the  force  of  a  testimony 
so  decided  and  unexceptionable.  That  in  regard 
to  the  meaning  of  baptism  it  utterly  breaks  away 
from  the  trammels  of  an  exclusively  modal  appli- 
cation is  clear  as  the  noonday  sun."  (Infant  Bap- 
tism, pp.  331,  332.) 

But  Dr.  Fuller  cannot  give  up  his  precious  and 
refreshing  dip.  He  asks,  (p.  30,)  "  What  was  the 
idea  in  Origen's  mind?  It  was  an  immersion^' ! 
Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  It  was  the  complaint  of  a  writer 
that  his  opponent  did  not  know  when  a  thing  was 
proved."  Will  he  just  put  a  pin  here  and  make 
the  proper  application  of  his  remark  ? 

In  Eouth's  Eeliquiae  Sacra?,  vol.  iii.  p.  48,  a 
passage  occurs  from  Nicephorus,  also  one  of  the 
Greek  Fathers,  in  which  he  describes  a  baptism. 
It  is  in  these  words: — <'He  [the  man],  expecting 
to  die,  asked  to  receive  the  water;  i.e.  to  be  bap- 
tized. And  he  baptized  him,  even  upon  his  couch 
on  which  he  lay."  Did  he  immerse  him  lying  on 
his  bed?  Yes,  say  our  Baptist  friends;  for  ''bap- 
12 


134  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

tizo  always  means  immerse/'  But  in  this  they  are 
much  wiser  than  Nicephorus;  for  he  says  "lie  bap- 
tized him"  in  a  specific  manner,  (perichutheuta,) 
"by  pouring  upon,  by  affusion."  There  was  no 
immersion  about  it;  but  this  Greek  Father  says  it 
was  a  baptism.  Was  he  ignorant  of  what  baptism 
meant? 

In  a  paper  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  found  in  the 
works  of  John  of  Damascus,  it  is  said  that  "John 
was  baptized  lebaptisthae]  by  placing  his  hand  on 
the  divine  head  of  his  Master."  Was  he  immersed 
by  putting  his  hand  on  the  Savior's  head?  If  not, 
here  is  another  baptism  without  immersion, —  a 
perfect  "  dry  dip."  The  writer  meant  to  say  that 
John  was  purified,  cleansed,  by  his  contact  with 
Jesus;  and  that  cleansing  he  expressed  by  the 
word  baptizo. 

Anastasius  {Biblo.  Patrum,  vol.  v.  p.  958)  speaks 
of  baptism  as  poui'cd  into  water-pots,  and  of  water- 
pots  as  baptized  by  pouring  baptism  into  them. 
Can  immersion  be  poured?  And  he  also  speaks 
of  this  very  transaction  as  a  type  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Gentiles.  Did  he  mean  that  the  Gentiles 
were  to  be  immersed  by  pouring  immersion  upon 
them?  Anastasius  meant  to  say  that  these  water- 
pots  were  cleansed,  or  purified,  by  pouring  a  puri- 
fier— that  is,  water — into  them;  and  baptizo  is  his 
word  for  it.  He  used  it  to  express  purification 
and  cleansing. 

Eusebius  (Hist.  Ecc.  lib.  6,  cap.  4)  says  of  a 
female  catechumen  who  was  burned  before  re- 
ceiving water-baptism,  "She  received  the  baptism 
which  is  by  fire,  and  departed  from  this  life."     Did 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE   FATHERS.  135 

she  receive  the  immersion  which  is  by  fire  ?  Where 
do  we  read  of  any  such  patristic  rite  as  that  of  im- 
mersion by  fire  ?  Eusebius  evidently  intended  to 
say  that  she  Avas  cleansed  or  purified  by  her  martyr- 
dom; and,  according  to  his  understanding  of  the 
Greelc,  baptize  adequately  expressed  this  meaning. 

In  the  fiftieth  canon  of  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions, as  they  are  called,  the  phrase  tria  baptis- 
mata  occurs.  On  this  Zonaras  and  Balsamon 
thought  themselves  called  on  to  make  a  note  to  in- 
form the  reader  that  in  this  case  baptisma  means 
immersion.  The  words  of  Balsamon  are,  "  It 
seems  to  me  that  baptismata  is  to  be  taken  for 
immersions  here."  Indeed!  Why,  if  it  always 
means  immerse  and  nothing  else,  both  the  note 
and  this  modest  expression  of  opinion  are  quite 
out  of  place.  Why  stop  to  inform  us  that  baptizo 
here,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  was  to  be  taken  for 
immersion  if  it  never  had  any  other  moaning? 
These  notes  are  proof  that  immersion  was  not 
its  common  meaning  in  Christian  Greek,  but  a 
sense  so  remote  as  not  likely  to  be  at  all  hit  on 
by  a  common  Christian  reader. 

What  shall  we  say,  then,  to  these  things?  Is 
not  the  point  made  out  and  proven  beyond  all 
controversy  that  immersion  is  not  the  sense  of 
baptizo  in  Christian  Greek  ?  We  have  shown  that 
the  religious  washing  of  Penelope,  and  the  wetting 
of  the  hands  of  Tclemachus,  and  the  lustrations 
of  the  Jews  reclining  on  their  couches,  and  the 
sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  a  burnt  heifer,  and  the 
sprinkling  of  a  lamb's  blood  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop, 
are  called  baptisms,  and  given  as  types  of  the  Chris- 


136  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

tian  sacrament  of  baptism.  We  have  shown  that 
the  cleansing  derived  from  the  cross  and  death  of 
the  Savior,  the  purifying  of  the  soul  from  anger, 
covetousness,  envy,  and  hatred,  the  sprinklings 
of  water  in  religious  service  by  the  heathen,  the 
purgation  of  circumcision,  the  pouring  out  of 
Christ's  blood,  the  supposed  purification  by  mar- 
tyrdom, the  pouring  out  of  water  upon  a  sacrifice 
on  the  altar,  the  baptism  of  a  man  on  his  bed  by 
affusion,  the  purification  of  John  by  touching 
Christ's  head,  the  cleansing  of  pots  by  pouring 
water  into  them, — cases  in  which  all  idea  of  im- 
mersion is  entirely  excluded, — all  are  denoted  by 
baptizo  in  one  or  the  other  of  its  forms,  and  that 
too  by  great  Christian  teachers  in  various  periods 
of  the  early  Church,  most  of  whom  were  native 
Greeks,  who  must  have  known  the  meaning  of  the 
language  which  they  spoke.  Nay,  we  have  shown 
that  certain  ancient  Greek  scholars  thought  it 
necessary  to  insert  notes  in  a  certain  place  to 
keep  the  reader  advised  that  there  baptizo  meant 
immerse.  And  how  any  man  can  rise  up  in  the 
face  of  all  this  and  say  that  this  word  always 
means  immersion,  and  never  any  thing  else,  is  a 
thing  which  we  know  not  how  to  understand.  It 
is  an  awful  stifling  and  suppression  of  the  truth. 
And,  if  that  is  being  "a  Baptist  on  principle,"  may 
the  Lord  have  mercy  upon  those  who  are  Baptists 
"in  sectarianism  and  bigotry" ! 


BAPTIZO    IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  137 


CHAPTEE  XI. 

BAPTIZO    IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT — PRELIMINARY 
QUESTION. 

"We  are  now  about  to  enter  within  the  New 
Testament,  to  see  what  it  can  teach  us  about 
baptizo  and  its  cognate  words,  and  whether  it 
furnishes  any  thing  to  prove  that  its  specific  and 
only  meaning  is  immerse.  But,  before  entering 
directly  upon  this  department  of  our  investigation, 
we  desire  to  raise  and  explain  a  preliminary  ques- 
tion, which  enters  into  it  very  deeply,  and  by  a 
proper  understanding  of  which  we  will  so  clear 
our  way  as  to  be  less  subject  to  interruptions. 

Most  of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  baptizo  occurs,  without  reference  to  John's 
baptism  or  to  the  Christian  sacrament,  refer  to  the 
purifications  and  lustrations  enjoined  in  the  law  of 
Moses.  It  therefore  becomes  exceedingly  import- 
ant to  know  exactly  what  those  purifying  ordi- 
nances of  Moses  were;  for  it  is  by  the  character 
of  those  Jewish  rites  that  we  are  to  determine  the 
general  signification  of  the  words  which  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  employ  to  designate  them. 
If  they  were  certainly  and  clearly  nothing  but 
total  immersions,  then  the  word  baptizo,  when  used 
by  the  inspired  penman  to  designate  them,  must 
12* 


138  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

mean  a  total  immersion  and  nothing  else ;  and  so, 
on  the  other  hand,  if  they  were  simple  expiations 
or  legal  purifications,  most  of  which  were  to  be 
performed  by  sprinkling,  and  the  rest  by  simple 
washing  or  bathing,  without  reference  to  mode, 
then  baptizo,  when  used  to  designate  them,  must 
take  the  general  scope  of  purification  as  its  great 
and  leading  idea,  without  being  limited  to  sprink- 
ling, perfusion,  hand-washing,  or  immersing,  but 
comprehending  all  these  modes. 

What,  then,  is  the  fact  with  reference  to  this 
matter?  Dr.  Fuller  nowhere  fairly  meets  this 
inquiry,  lie  proceeds  as  if  it  were  a  thing  entirely 
settled  and  universally  agreed,  that  all  the  purifi- 
cations of  the  Mosaic  law,  designated  in  the  New 
Testament  by  baptizo  and  baptismos,  were  total 
immersions  and  nothing  else.  Here  and  there,  as 
occasion  seems  to  demand,  and  where  nothing  else 
would  save  his  cause,  he  throws  in  a  quotation  or 
two  from  authors  who  had  before  them  a  very 
different  subject  of  inquiry,  and  some  of  them 
from  books  which  we  fear  he  never  saw,  all  to 
leave  the  impression  upon  his  reader's  mind  that 
all  these  legal  baptisms  were  clearly,  decidedly, 
and  on  all  hands  admitted  to  be  nothing  but  total 
immersions ! 

We  propose,  then,  to  brush  away  these  cobwebs 
of  a  perverted  erudition ;  and,  in  doing  so,  we  will 
go  at  once  to  the  high,  pure,  and  infallible  authority 
of  God's  own  word,  leaving  Dr.  Fuller  with  Maimo- 
nides  and  the  Targums,  groping  his  way  amid  the 
traditions  of  the  elders,  for  the  sake  of  which  he  is 
not  the  first  to  set  aside  the  commandment  of  God. 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  139 

We  deny — and  we  challenge  the  production  of 
scriptural  proof  to  the  contrary — that  there  is  any- 
where in  the  Mosaic  ritual  any  law  enjoining  upon 
the  Jews  the  necessity  of  totally  immersing  them- 
selves. In  all  the  five  books  of  Moses,  so  far  as  we 
have  learned,  the  Hebrew  word  for  immerse  (thahaV) 
is  not  used  in  one  single  instance  w^here  the  washing 
and  purification  of  persons  is  enjoined,  nor  any  other 
word  of  corresponding  import.  Dr.  Carson  is  re- 
luctantly compelled  to  admit  this  fact.  "  I  admit," 
gays  he,  "  that  the  Hebrew  modal  verb  is  not  used 
with  respect  to  persons."  (P.  443.)  It  follows, 
then,  that  no  stronger  word  than  the  general  term 
rahatz  is  used  in  the  Jewish  law  for  any  of  the 
lustrations  of  men  therein  enjoined. 

This  word  rahatz  is  rendered  in  our  English 
Bible  by  the  word  wash,  sometimes  bathe.  Dr. 
Fuller  admits  and  contends  that  the  command  to 
wa^h  is  not  a  command  either  to  sprinkle,  pour,  or 
dip;  that  "it  is  a  command  to  wash  and  nothing 
else;"  and  that  ^^ washing  is  more  than,  and  nfay  be 
performed  without,  either  sprinkli7ig,  or  pouring,  or 
dipping."  (P.  15.)  We  argue,  then,  as  these  Le- 
vitical  baptisms  were  mere  washings  and  nothing 
else,  so  far  as  God's  injunction  goes,  they  were  not 
immersions,  any  more  than  sprinklings  or  any 
other  special  mode  of  purifying  with  water. 

The  word  bathe,  which  occurs  in  a  few  cases  in 
the  English  version  of  these  laws  of  Levitical  puri- 
fications, might  at  first  seem  to  indicate  that  they 
were  to  be  performed  by  immersion.  But  in  the 
original  the  word  is  always  rahatz,  the  same  that 
is  rendered  wash.     ^Neither  does  bathe  necessarily 


140  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

convey  the  idea  of  immersion.  It  is  from  the  Saxon 
hathian,  which  means  simply  to  wash.  It  contains 
no  indication  of  mode.  We  may  bathe  by  sprink- 
ling, rubbing,  or  suffusion,  as  well  as  by  plunging. 
We  have  many  more  shower-baths  and  spongo- 
baths  than  plunge-baths.  To  be  bathed  in  tears 
certainly  does  not  mean  totally  immersed  in  tears. 
To  bathe  a  wound  is  not  to  immerse  it,  but  to 
moisten  it  with  lotion  or  to  wash.  it. 

Now,  we  assert  that  if  any  of  these  Levitical 
lustrations  were  total  immersions  and  nothing  else, 
that  fact  must  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  word  rahatz; 
for  this  is  the  only  word  by  which  they  are  signi- 
fied in  all  of  those  cases  where  the  express  mode 
of  the  purification  is  not  given.  This  word  is 
usually  rendered  wash  in  the  English  Bible.  "  How 
much  of  an  ablution  is  properly  implied  by  the 
term,"  Professor  Bush  remarks,  "  it  is  difiicult  to 
say.  That  it  does  not  indicate  a  complete  im- 
mersion of  the  body  in  water  would  seem  evident 
from'the  fact  that  we  read  of  no  provision  being 
made  for  such  a  rite,  either  in  the  holy  place  or  in 
the  court  of  the  tabernacle."  In  the  Septuagint  it 
is  sometimes  rendered  by  louo,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  means  simply  to  cleanse  or  wash,  sometimes 
by  nipto,  which  means  hand-washing,  and  some- 
times by  pluno,  which  has  only  the  general  signifi- 
cation of  wash,  rinse,  or  wet.  None  of  these 
words  prescribe  mode,  and  no  more  mean  to  im- 
merse than  they  mean  to  pour  upon,  or  to  sprinkle, 
or  to  apply  water  in  any  other  manner  for  the 
purpose  of  cleansing. 

To  obtain  a  clear  conception  of  the  meaning  and 


EAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  141 

scope  of  rahatz,  and  to  see  how  far  it  is  from  de- 
noting immersion  and  nothing  else,  let  the  reader 
examine  the  following  passages,  in  which  it  is 
used : — 

"Let  a  little  water,  I  pray  you,  be  fetched,  and 
wash  [j'ahatz']  your  feet."  (Gen.  xviii.  4.) 

"And  he  entered  into  his  chamber  and  wept 
there;  and  he  washed  [rahatz~\  his  face  and  went 
out."  (Gen.  xliii.  30,  31.) 

"And  thou  shalt  cut  the  ram  in  pieces  and 
wash  [rahatz^  the  inwards  of  him."  —  (Exodus 
xxix.  17.) 

"I  will  wash  [rahatz'\  my  hands  in  innocency." 
(Isa.  xxvi.  6.) 

"Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean; 
wash  [rahatz']  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow." 
(Ps.  li.  7.) 

"  I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain  and  washed 
[rahatz]  my  hands  in  innocency."     (Ps.  Ixxiii.  13.) 

"  Wash  [rahatz]  ye;  make  you  clean;  put  away 
the  evil."  (Isa.  i.  16.) 

"  When  the  Lord  shall  have  washed  away  [rahatz] 
the  filth  of  the  daughters  of  Zion,  and  shall  have 
purged  the  blood  of  Jerusalem  from  the  midst 
thereof  by  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  burning." 
(Isa.  iv.  4.) 

"O  Jerusalem,  wash  [rahatz]  thine  heart  from 
wickedness,  that  thou  mayest  be  saved." — 
(Jer.  iv.  14.) 

"  For  though  thou  wash  [rahatz]  thee  with  nitre, 
and  take  thee  much  soap,  yet  thine  iniquity  is 
marked  before  me,  saitli  the  Lord."  (Jer.  ii.  22.) 

And,  if  any  one  is  not  satisfied  with  these  quota- 


142  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

tions,  let  him  take  a  Hebrew  Concordance  and 
trace  this  word  through  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  he  will  find  that  it  is  used  over 
and  over  to  denote  the  icashing  of  any  thing, — of 
the  feet,  hands,  face,  body,  and  mind, —  and  that 
without  the  remotest  allusion  to  the  mode  in 
which  it  was  to  be  done.  It  is  a  word  which  has 
in  itself  no  reference  to  mode.  It  contemplates 
only  an  effect  to  be  reached  by  the  use  of  a  fluid, 
without  any  regard  to  the  manner  of  that  use, 
whether  by  friction,  pouring,  sprinkling,  soaking, 
or  plunging. 

We  wish  it,  therefore,  to  be  distinctly  under- 
stood, and  thoroughly  impressed  upon  the  mind, 
that  this  word  rahatz,  the  meaning  of  which  is 
simply  to  wash  or  cleanse,  no  matter  in  what 
mode,  is  the  word  used  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  all 
those  passages  of  the  Mosaic  law  where  bathing 
and  washing  are  enjoined,  and  upon  which  Dr. 
Fuller  relies  so  confidently  as  indicating  immer- 
sion and  nothing  else.  We  insist  that  they  were 
no  more  immersions  than  they  were  pourings,  be- 
cause the  word  which  designates  them  means  as 
much  to  pour  upon  as  to  immerse,  and  is  as  com- 
pletely fulfilled  by  the  one  as  bj'^  the  other. 

Such,  then,  is  the  exact  state  of  the  case  with 
regard  to  those  Levitical  lustrations  in  which 
bathing  is  spoken  of 

But,  in  addition  to  this  argument  from  the  word 
rahatz,  we  remark  further  that,  under  all  those 
circumstances  upon  which  Dr.  Fuller  dwells  as 
establishing  that  these  bathings  were  performed 
by  immersion,  w^e  have  positive  proof  that  they 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  143 

were  not  performed  by  immersion.  Take  the  ease 
of  the  young  man  spoken  of  in  Tobit  vi.  2.  He 
was  out  upon  a  journey;  he  had  encamped  by 
the  river-side;  and  (katebe)  he  went  down  to 
wash  himself  This  word  katebe — he  went  down — 
is  precisely  the  same,  and  used  here  under  pre- 
cisely the  same  circumstances,  as  in  the  case  of 
Naaman  and  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  where  Dr. 
Fuller  lays  so  much  stress  upon  it.  It  is  a  word 
in  which  he  finds  a  world  of  force  and  argument 
when  spoken  with  reference  to  an  approach  to- 
ward the  water.  Naaman  (katebe')  went  down  and 
washed  in  Jordan.  Philip  and  the  eunuch  (kate- 
besan)  went  down  into  the  water.  And  this  is  to 
prove  to  us  that  they  were  immersed.  Well,  just 
so  this  young  traveller  (katebe)  went  down  to  wash 
in  the  Tigris.  Did  he  immerse  himself?  Was 
the  submersion  of  his  body  the  mode  in  which  his 
ablution  was  performed  ?  Upon  Dr.  Fuller's  argu- 
ment we  would  say,  most  unquestionably,  yes. 
But  let  us  not  be  so  hasty  and  confident  in  our 
conclusions.  The  record  says,  katebe  periklu- 
SASTHAi,  he  went  down  and  washed  himself  all 
around;  just  as  a  man  Avould  stand  in  a  stream 
and  throw  the  water  up  on  all  sides  of  his  body 
and  thoroughly  rub  himself  clean. 

Here,  then,  is  a  case  to  explain  what  the  Jews 
understood  by  those  injunctions  of  the  law  pro- 
viding that  persons  should  "wash  their  flesh,"  or 
"bathe  themselves  in  water," — a  case  where  the 
circumstances  were  such  that,  if  immersion  had 
been  contemplated,  immersion  certainly  would 
have    been    performed, — a   case    which    at  onco 


144  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

breaks  the  force  of  Dr.  Fuller's  argument  on  the 
word  katebe,  and  completely  annihilates  what  he 
has  built  upon  the  word  bathe.  We  care  not 
whether  the  story  be  true  or  false :  Tobit  is  not 
an  inspired  book;  but  its  historical  details  may 
still  be  true.  Whether  it  be  fact  or  fiction,  it  is 
equally  in  point  to  illustrate  the  ideas,  the  man- 
ners, and  the  customs  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written,  and  is  of  more  value  for  such  a  purpose 
than  the  sayings  of  a  thousand  Eabbis  of  com- 
paratively modern  times. 

And,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  room  for 
doubt  upon  the  meaning  of  periklusasthai,  (from 
perikluzo,)  we  adduce  the  following  instances: — 

Aristotle  applies  it  to  the  washing  of  children : — 
to  paidion  hudati  perikluzein,  "  to  wash  the  child  all 
around  icith  loater." 

It  is  used  by  Euripides  to  denote  the  washing 
of  the  body  with  water  from  the  sea,  where  ho 
applies  nipto  to  the  same  operation, — nipto,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Fuller's  own  authority,  on  page  21,  de- 
notes hand-washing,  and  not  a  total  immersion. 

In  Lucian,  V.  H.,  1,  31,  it  is  applied  to  an 
object  wet  or  sprinkled  on  all  sides  with  spray  by 
rapid  motion  in  water. 

Plutarch  uses  klu20  to  denote  the  cleansing  of 
the  system  from  bile  by  the  use  of  purgative 
medicines;  also,  with  the  preposition  {apo)  from, 
to  express  the  washing  off  of  blood  from  armor 
that  had  been  used  in  battle. 

Pollux  gives  it  as  the  synonym  of  plunein, 
hruptein,  and  kathairein,  and  their  compounds  with 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.  145 

dia,  apo,  and  ek, — all  of  which  is  quite  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  of  immersion. 

And  Stevens,  Scapula,  Ernesti,  Hedei'icuS;  Pas- 
sow,  Donnegan,  and,  as  far  as  we  know,  all  the 
lexicographers,  give ^mAZw^o  as  the  washing  around 
the  person  or  thing  which  is  the  subject,  so  as  to 
eifect  the  most  thorough  cleansing. 

This  young  man,  then,  even  when  he  was  at  the 
river-side,  after  (katebe)  he  went  down  as  Naaman 
and  the  eunuch  (katebe)  went  down,  and  that  for  the 
express  purpose  of  purifying  himself, — when  every 
thing  that  Dr.  Fuller  relies  on  to  prove  an  immer- 
sion was  there, — did  not  immerse  himself,  but  (peri- 
klusasthai)  with  his  hands  thoroughly  washed  himself 
all  around. 

So  much  for  those  Levitical  purifications  in 
which  washing  and  bathing  are  concerned.  But 
there  were  others,  in  which  the  mode  is  particu- 
larly designated.  It  appertains  to  our  purpose  to 
say  a  word  or  two  about  these. 

And  foremost  and  above  all  stands  the  great 
catharism,  or  expiation,  of  which  we  have  an  ac- 
count in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus,  and  which 
has  been  kept  as  an  annual  observance  by  the 
children  of  Israel  for  the  last  three  thousand  years. 
Ambrose,  as  we  have  seen,  calls  it  a  baptism.  It 
was  a  holy  ordinance  of  expiation,  cleansing  from 
sin  and  exempting  from  death,  as  it  pointed  to  the 
great  spiritual  purgation  effected  by  the  blood- 
shedding  of  that  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world.  It  was  ordained  as  a  statute 
forever  among  the  generations  of  Israel.  It  pointed 
back  to  their  redemption  from  Egypt  and  its 
13  '      • 


]46  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

destruction,  and  forward  to  that  still  more  glo- 
rious expiation  eiFected  by  Jesus  on  the  cross.  It 
was  among  all  the  Jewish  rites  by  eininence  a 
catharism,  a  cleansing,  a  covering  uj)  and  washing 
away  of  sin.  A  more  striking  case  of  absolution 
is  not  contained  in  the  ancient  Scriptures.  How, 
then,  was  it  to  be  performed?  "Will  any  one  pre- 
tend to  say  that  there  was  any  bathing,  washing, 
or  immersion  about  it  ?  A  spotless  lamb  was  to  be 
slain,  and  its  blood  was  to  be  struck  or  sprinkled 
upon  the  lintel  and  side-posts  of  the  door.  God 
saw  those  stains  of  blood  and  was  satisfied;  and 
the  hand  of  destruction  and  death  was  restrained 
as  it  passed. 

One  of  the  greatest  uncleannesses  among  the 
Jews  was  the  dreadful  disease  of  leprosy.  God 
also  gave  them  special  laws  to  be  observed  in 
purifying  themselves  from  it.  This  constituted 
one  of  their  most  solemn  purifications.  And  so 
far  as  the  official  and  social  act  of  this  purification, 
as  performed  by  an  administrator,  was  concerned, 
it  was  done  solely  by  sprinJding  upon  the  sub- 
ject the  blood  of  a  turtle-dove  or  pigeon.  (See 
Lev.  xiv.) 

Another  uncleanness  under  the  Mosaic  law  was 
contact  with  the  dead.  The  mode  of  its  purgation 
is  also  clearly  given : — "  They  shall  take  of  the 
ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin, 
and  running  water  shall  be  j^ut  thereto  in  a  vessel; 
and  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  him  that  touched 
a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave." 
(Xum.  xix.  17,  18.) 


BAPTIZO    IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  147 

Another  of  the  Levitical  purifications  was  that  at 
the  ordination  and  induction  of  the  Levites  to  the 
office  of  priests.  In  Numbers  viii.  3,  7  the  mode 
of  doing  it  is  explicitly  given: — "  Take  the  Levites 
and  cleanse  them.  And  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto 
them  to  cleanse  them :  Sprinkle  water  of  purifying 
upon  them."  Cyprian,  in  his  sixty-ninth  epistle, 
also  adduces  this  very  passage  in  proof  of  what 
is  the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  (Oxford,  1844, 
p.  228.) 

As  to  the  other  and  more  familiar  lustrations  of 
the  Jews,  a  correct  idea  of  the  mode  of  their  perform- 
ance may  be  obtained  from  what  is  said  in  John  ii. 
6,  in  the  account  of  the  miracle  at  the  marriage  in 
Cana : — "  And  there  were  set  there  six  water-pots 

of  stone,  AFTER   THE    MANNER   OP   THE   PURIFYING   OP 

THE  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece." 
Surely,  if  "the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews" 
was  adequately  provided  for  in  a  few  water-jars, 
the  contents  of  w^hich  could  be  entirely  drunk  up 
by  way  of  a  supplement  to  a  wedding-feast,  those 
purifications  were,  at  any  rate,  not  performed  by 
immersion.  An  allusion  to  the  mode  of  these 
ordinarj'  ablutions  is  also  found  in  2  Kings  iii.  11, 
where  Elisha  is  characterized  as  he  "  who  poured 
water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah;"  i.e.  the  servant  who 
assisted  the  prophet  in  his  purifications. 

We  also  deem  it  worthy  of  remark  that,  in  that 
Orient  world  where  customs  never  change,  we 
still  find  some  remains  of  these  ceremonial  puri- 
fications and  of  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
performed.  The  Mussulman,  seated  on  the  edge  of 
his  sofa,  has  a  vessel  placed  before  him  on  a  large 


148  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

red  cloth.  A  servant  on  the  right  pours  out  the 
water  for  his  master's  use,  and  another  on  the  left 
stands  ready  with  the  drying-towel.  The  devotee 
begins  the  service  by  bareing  his  arms  to  the 
elbows.  He  applies  the  water  to  his  hands,  mouth, 
nostrils,  and  forehead,  repeating  his  prayers.  He 
then  rises  up  under  the  belief  that  he  is  pure. 
May  not  this  also  throw  light  upon  "  the  manner 
of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,"  from  whom  Mahomet 
and  his  people  borrowed  so  many  of  their  sacred 
ceremonies? 

Such,  then,  were  the  catharisms  and  lustrations 
prescribed  in  the  Levitical  code  and  performed  by 
the  Jews  in  the  Savior's  time.  If  there  were  any 
others  performed  in  any  way  different  from  those 
which  we  have  named,  we  should  like  to  have 
them  pointed  out  to  us,  not  from  Maimonides,  who 
lived  but  650  years  ago,  or  from  Vatablus,  who 
may  still  be  giving  Hebrew  lessons  to  the  students 
of  Paris,  but  from  the  laws  of  Moses  or  from 
authentic  records  written  by  men  cotemporaneous 
with  Christ  and  his  apostles.  We  do  not  pretend 
to  deny,  indeed,  that  many  of  these  Levitical  ablu- 
tions, when  every  thing  else  was  convenient  and 
favorable,  were  perhaps  performed  by  immersion. 
This  may  have  been;  and  thus  we  would  account 
for  the  sayings  of  those  men  whom  Dr.  Fuller  has 
quoted  in  his  book.  But  we  do  most  positively 
deny  that  a  total  immersion  of  the  body  was  an 
essential  part  of  any  of  them,  whilst  many  of  them 
were,  by  express  injunction  of  God,  to  be  performed 
by  sprinkling  alone. 

We  have  already  detained   the   reader  longer 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  149 

apon  this  point  than  we  designed;  but  the  great 
importance  of  it  in  determining  the  I^ew  Testa- 
ment use  of  baptize  and  its  derivative  baptismos, 
will  readily  be  seen.  It  is  with  reference  to  these 
rites  that  these  words  are  used.  The  natui'e  of 
these  rites  must  therefore  determine  the  meaning 
of  these  words.  And  what  shall  be  said  of  Dr. 
Fuller's  theory  that  "baptizo  denotes  a  total  im- 
mersion and  has  no  other  meaning,"  when  we 
make  it  appear  that  Paul,  by  inspiration  of  God, 
sums  up  all  these  ancient  catharisms  and  lustra- 
tions as  so  many  different  baptisms? 

Let  the  reader  turn,  then,  to  the  ninth  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  sacred  writer 
there  sets  out  to  give  an  account  of  the  rites  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  law.  He  is  talking  of  these 
rites  and  ceremonies,  not  as  they  applied  to  cups 
and  pots  and  other  inanimate  things,  but  as  they 
applied  to  the  persons  of  the  worshipers  and  of 
their  efficacy  to  "make  perfect  as  pertaining  to 
the  conscience."  He  mentions  expressly  the  legal 
abstinences  and  offerings,  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  expiation  by  the  priest,  and  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  upon  the  unclean. 
And  in  verse  10  he  takes  them  all  up  in  one 
mental  grasp  and  finds  them  all  comprehended 
monon  epi  bromasi  kai  pomasi,  kai  diaphorois  bap- 
TiSMOis;  that  is  to  say,  "only  in  meats,  and  drinks, 
and  DIVERS  baptisms." 

Here  we  have  it,  plain,  unequivocal,  staring 
every  man  full  in  the  face,  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  distinctions  in  meats  and  drinks,  the  whole 
round   of   the   Levitical    purifications,   from    the 

13* 


150  TUE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

sprinkling  of  blood  by  the  high-priest  in  the  holy 
of  holies  to  the  spi-inkling  of  the  ashes  of  the 
burnt  heifer  on  the  bodies  of  the  unclean,  ''stood 
only  in,"  and  by  inspiration  of  the  great  God  him- 
self are  called,  baptisms — diaphorois  baptismois. 

What  can  be  clearer  than  this?     What  more 
conclusive?     Is  it  not  demonstration  itself? 


CHAPTEE  XII. 

BAPTIZO    IN     THE    NEW   TESTAMENT JEWISH    LUS- 
TRATIONS. 

We  have  now  shown  that  the  purifications  and 
expiations  enjoined  in  the  Jewish  law  were  not 
immersions,  but  either  sprinklings  or  simple  wash- 
ings, ordinarily  performed  under  circumstances 
where  immei'sion  was  quite  out  of  the  question. 
We  have  also  seen  that  the  inspired  writer  in  He- 
brews sums  up  all  these  Levitical  purifications  in 
the  one  word  baptisms.  We  can  conceive  of  no 
stronger  proof  to  show  that  this  word  does  not  and 
cannot  always  mean  immerse  and  nothing  else. 
The  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  on 
the. doors  certainly  was  not  an  immersion;  neither 
was  the  sjji'inkling  of  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer 
on  the  unclean  an  immersion.  The  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  a  young  pigeon  upon  the  recovering 
leper  was  not  an  immersion.  The  cleansing  of  the 
Levites  by  sprinkling  "water  of  purifying  upon 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  151 

them"  was  not  an  immersion.  Elisha's  pouring 
of  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah  was  not  an  im- 
mersion. "The  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the 
Jews/'  as  indicated  by  the  "six  water-pots  of 
stone,"  in  which  the  Savior's  first  miracle  was 
wrought,  was  not  by  immersion.  And  even  those 
more  thorough  washings  of  the  flesh  and  bathings, 
all  of  which  are  denoted  by  the  word  rahatz,  were 
not  necessarily  immersions  any  more  than  hand- 
washings.  It  is  a  fact,  which  cannot  be  denied, 
that  there  is  not  a  personal  immersion  required  in 
all  the  Mosaic  law.  There  were,  however,  many 
lustrations  and  cleansings  enjoined;  and  in  most 
of  these  the  mode  also  was  given  in  the  same  law 
that  enjoined  them.  That  mode  was  sprinkling. 
And  yet,  in  the  ]N^ew  Testament,  inspired  authority 
calls  them  all  baptisms. 

Besides,  the  very  epithet  which  the  apostle  uses 
to  describe  these  baptisms  shows  that  he  did  not 
mean  immersions.  He  denominates  them  diapho- 
rois, — different,  diverse,  distinguishable  the  one  from 
the  other.  An  immersion  is  an  immersion;  and 
one  immereion  for  purification  is  just  like  all  other 
immersions  for  purification.  Such  immersions  were 
not  diverse  or  various,  either  in  act,  in  circum- 
stances, or  in  end.  One  is  a  perfect  facsimile  of 
the  other.  There  is  no  diversity  about  them.  But 
the  baptisms  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking  he 
characterizes  expressly  as  diaphorois  baptismois — 
DIVERS  BAPTISMS.  If  he  meant  divers  immersions, 
they  that  so  understand  him  are  bound  to  show 
the  diversity.  They  have  never  done  it;  and, 
taking  the  word  in  that  sense,  they  never  can  do 


152  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

it.  But,  taking  baptisms  here  in  the  wider  and 
more  natural  sense  of  katharizo, — to  purify  and 
expiate, — the  diversity  spoken  of  is  at  once  obvious. 
Some  were  performed  by  the  use  of  blood,  some  by 
the  use  of  ashes,  and  others  by  the  use  of  water. 
In  some  the  performance  was  by  sprinkling,  in 
some  by  hand-washing,  in  others  by  pouring 
water  on  the  hands,  and  perchance  in  a  few  cases 
by  immersion.  This  forms  the  variety.  And  still 
they  were  all  baptisms.  The  sprinklings  with 
ashes  were  baptisms,  expressly  so  called  by  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  who  lived  within  a  few  hundred 
years  of  the  apostles;  and  the  sprinklings  with 
blood  were  baptisms,  so  more  than  once  declared 
by  Ambrose,  who  lived  still  nearer  to  the  apos- 
tolic age;  and  the  various  lustrations,  including 
the  washing  of  hands  and  other  water-applications, 
were  baptisms,  so  pronounced  by  Clement  of  Alex- 
andi'ia,  who  lived  within  one  hundred  years  of  the 
death  of  St.  John ;  and  all  of  them  together  were 
baptisms,  so  declared  by  authority  which  could  not 
err,  even  by  the  inspired  writer  of  the  Ejiistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  Is  it  not  as  plain  then  as  language 
can  make  it  that  they  were  baptisms,  not  because 
they  were  immersions,  for  they  were  not  im- 
mersions, but  baptisms  in  the  only  true  religious 
sense  of  the  word,  because  i\iQj  yifcxQ  purifications? 
In  Mark  vii.  4  we  have  another  instance  of  the 
use  of  baptizo  in  which  we  must  assign  to  it  this 
same  signification.  "And  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash  \baptisontai']  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be  which 
they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  [bap- 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  153 

tismous]  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and 
tables." 

Dr.  Fuller's  position  is,  that  "  an  e7itire  immersion 
belongs  to  the  nature  of  baptism ;"  that  *'  baptizo 
contains  the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion  under 
water;"  that  ''it  always  denotes  a  total  immersion." 
(Pp.  19,  23.)  Of  coui'se,  then,  if  his  position  is 
true,  it  must  hold  good  in  this  case;  and  when  it 
is  said  that  the  Pharisees  never  eat  after  returning 
from  the  market  until  theij  have  baptized  themselves, 
it  must  mean  that  they  totally  immersed  themselves. 
Did  they,  then,  totally  immerse  themselves  ?  He 
quotes  fourteen  authorities  on  this  point :  quite  a 
formidable  array,  surely.  But  two  of  these  very 
authorities,  in  the  very  passages  quoted,  speak  only 
of  washings,  without  saying  one  word  about  the 
mode  in  which  they  were  to  be  done;  and  seven 
more  of  these  same  authorities — Campbell,  Bux- 
torf,  Wetstein,  Eosenmtiller,  Kuinol,  Spencer,  and 
Lightfoot — say  most  explicitly  that  these  Pharisaic 
purifications  after  return  from  market  were  only 
washings  of  the  hands!  So  that  seven  out  of  twelve 
of  his  own  witnesses,  and  those  the  most  I'eliable, 
positively  declare  that  these  Pharisaic  baptisms 
were  not  total  immersions,  but  hand-washings. 

Nor  will  it  meet  the  case  for  Dr.  Fuller  to  say 
or  to  prove  that  these  hand-washings  were  im- 
mersions of  the  hands.  The  baptisms  are  predi- 
cated of  'Hhe  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,"  not  of  the 
hands  of  the  Pharisees  and  Jews.  "And  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  [bapti- 
sontai^  they  eat  not."  The  baptism  is  the  baptism 
of  the  same  that  went  to  market,  that  returned 


154  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

from  market,  and  that  ate.  The  same  nominative 
stands  for  all  these  verbs.  Certainly  it  was  not 
the  hands  alone  that  went  to  market,  nor  the  hands 
alone  that  returned  from  market,  nor  the  hands 
alone  that  ate.  ''The  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews" 
constitute  the  subject  of  whom  these  things  are 
alleged;  and  Dr.  Fuller  can  no  more  exempt  all 
but  hands  from  the  force  of  baptisontai  than  he  can 
exempt  all  but  hands  from  the  eating  and  returning 
from  market.  It  was  the  Pharisees  that  ate,  and 
the  Pharisees  that  returned  from  market,  and  it 
was  the  Pharisees  that  baptized  themselves.  And 
so,  if  that  baptism  was  performed  by  a  simple 
washing  of  the  hands,  no  matter  whether  they 
were  steeped  in  water,  or  whether  water  was 
poured,  or  sprinkled,  or  rubbed  upon  them,  it  was 
not  a  total  immersion;  and  baptizo  here  must  take 
the  sense  oi purify,  and  not  that  of  entire  immersion 
under  water. 

But  what  is  to  be  done  with  Dr.  Fuller's  five 
remaining  authorities,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the 
Pharisees  totally  immersed  themselves  before  eat- 
ing, after  having  been  at  the  market?  Whether 
he  has  quoted  them  fairly  we  have  not  attempted 
to  ascertain.  All  we  have  to  say  on  that  point  is, 
that  a  man  who  can  take  the  liberties  with  the 
Book  of  God — a  book  in  every  one's  hand — which 
we  have  proven  upon  Dr.  Fuller,  is  not  very  much 
to  be  relied  on  when  he  comes  to  give  a  line  or  two 
here  and  there  from  rare  books,  which  the  most 
intelligent  men  seldom  see.  But  we  will  suppose 
these  quotations  all  accurate  and  just.  What  do 
.they  amount  to?    Two  of  them — one  from  Maimo- 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.  155 

nides  and  one  from  Vatablus — say  not  a  word  about 
the  market,  and  may  refer  to  a  very  different 
department  of  Pharisaic  lustrations  from  that 
alluded  to  in  the  text.  But  we  pass  this  also,  and 
permit  them  all  to  stand  as  going  directly  to  the 
point.  And  yet  we  can  satisfactorily  meet  them 
all  without  travelling  out  of  Dr.  Fuller's  own  book. 
Seven  of  his  own  authorities,  and  the  very  best  out 
of  the  twelve  that  he  has  quoted  in  this  place,  flatly 
contradict,  confound,  and  completely  negative  the 
other  five,  and,  in  words  as  positive  as  can  be 
chosen,  declare  that  these  Pharisaic  purifications 
after  attending  market  were  not  total  immersions, 
but  hand-washings.  Are  not  seven  an  adequate 
offset  to  five?  Are  not  Buxtorf,  Wetstein,  Eosen- 
miiller,  Kuinol,  Spencer,  and  Lightfoot  names  as 
great  and  controlling  as  Vatablus,  Grotius,  Maimo- 
nides,  and  Macknight?  According  to  one  list,  the 
baptism  before  us  was  an  immersion  of  the  whole 
body, — a  total  immersion ;  according  to  the  other 
list,  it  was  a  mere  washing  of  the  hands;  according 
to  a  third  list,  it  was  a  simple  washing,  without 
specification  of  mode  :  and  all  the  lists  are  Dr. 
Fuller's  own  quotations !  Let  him  harmonize  his 
authorities  if  he  can,  and  then  perhaps  they  may 
be  of  some  weight.  If  these  purifications  from  the 
contaminations  of  the  market-place  were  mere 
washings,  they  may  have  been  immersions,  or  they 
may  have  been  sprinklings  or  rubbings.  If  they 
were  mere  hand-washings,  they  certainly  were  not 
total  immersions;  and  the  great  weight  of  his 
authorities  goes  to  establish  that  they  were  mere 
hand-washings  and  nothing  else. 


156  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

Kow,  Ave  do  not  intend  to  maintain  that  these 
Pharisaic  lustrations  from  the  supposed  defilement 
of  attending  market  were  never  performed  by  a 
general  bathing,  or  even  by  a  total  immersion. 
The  probability  is,  that  in  the  warm  season,  and 
when  circumstances  made  it  convenient,  they  did 
at  times  perform  this  particular  purification  in  one 
or  the  other  of  these  ways.  No  sensible  man  will 
deny  that  such  instances  may  have  occurred.  And 
this  will  sufficiently  account  for  what  has  been  said 
by  Maimonides,  Grotius,  and  Macknight.  But  we 
do  maintain  that  this  was  not  the  only  nor  the 
ordinary  way  of  performing  this  purification.  The 
seven  authorities  quoted  by  Dr.  Fuller,  which  de- 
clare that  it  was  done  by  the  mere  washing  of  the 
hands,  is  proof  enough  to  our  purpose.  But  we 
will  not  stop  with  what  they  have  said.  Our 
author  seems  to  think  that  authorities  are  argu- 
ments ;  and  therefore  we  will  not  withhold  them. 

The  commentator  Heniy  remarks  upon  the  cus- 
toms of  the  Jews  as  related  to  this  passage,  "They 
particularly  washed  before  they  ate  bread.  They 
took  special  care,  when  they  came  from  the  mar- 
kets, to  icash  their  hands.  The  rule  of  the  Rabbins 
was,  that  if  they  washed  their  hands  well  in  the 
morning  it  would  serve  for  all  day,  provided  they 
kept  alone;  but  if  they  went  into  company  they 
must  not  eat  or  pray  till  they  had  washed  their 
hands." 

Scott  saj^s,  "It  seems  undeniable  that  by  the 
words  baptize  and  baptism,  a  partial  application 
of  water  was  intended  in  this  as  in  several  other 
places." 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  157 

Dr.  Schaff,  in  his  Historj-  of  the  Apostolic  Church, 
p.  569,  says,  "  In  support  of  this  [that  bapiizo  has 
the  genei'al  sense  to  wash,  to  cleanse]  a  confident 
appeal  can  assuredly  be  made  to  several  passages, 
— viz.,  Luke  xi.  38,  with  Mark  vii.  2,  4,  where  bap- 
tizien  is  used  of  the  washing  op  hands  before  eating. 
Mark  has  for  this  (v.  3)  niptein,  which,  in  the  East, 
was  performed  by  pouring."  The  same  author  says 
that  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  Heb.  ix.  10,  ^^  Baptismoi  must 
be  taken  to  include  all  sorts  of  religious  purifications 
among  the  Jews,  including  sprinkling." 

Bloomfield  says  that  baptizo  here  does  not  denote 
an  immersion. 

In  Morris  and  Smith's  Exposition  of  the  Gospels 
we  have  this  note  upon  this  passage : — "  They  [the 
Jews]  did  not  immerse  themselves  in  water,  but 
used  a  small  quantity,  which  was  applied  to  the 
hand  and  wrist,  or,  at  most,  to  the  arm  as  far  as 
the  elbow.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Jews  washed 
the  whole  body  when  they  returned  from  market.  There 
could  have  been  no  necessity  for  it,  even  in  their 
opinion.  The  most  they  did  was  to  wash  those 
parts  which  were  exposed  to  contamination." 

Eosenmiiller  B'ajb,  "The  sense  is,  'when  they 
come  from  the  market  (i.e.  any  public  place')  they 
do  not  take  their  food  except  they  wash  their 
hands'  '* 

Dr.  Dick  says,  "The  baptizing  after  return  from 
market  probably  signifies  the  same  thing  with 
washing  their  hands,  as  it  is  very  improbable  that 
on  every  such  occasion  they  washed  the  whole 
body."  (Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  375.) 

Albert  Barnes  saj's,  "  Baptize^  in  this  place,  does 

14 


158  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

not  mean  to  immerse  the  whole  body.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  Jews  immersed  their  whole 
bodies  every  time  they  came  from  the  market.  It 
is  probable  they  washed  as  a  mere  ceremony,  and 
often,  doubtless,  with  the  use  of  a  very  small  quan- 
tity of  water." 

And  in  the  notes  to  the  Cottage  Bible  it  is  said 
that  some  of  the  wealthier,  who  had  the  leisure  and 
all  the  necessary  conveniences,  may  have  immersed 
themselves,  but  that  the  generality  of  the  Jews  did 
no  more  than  wash  their  hands. 

It  may  be  said  that  these  are  all  modern  authori- 
ties. Be  it  so :  we  will  give  some  more  ancient. 
The  oldest  given  by  Dr.  Fuller  carries  us  back  to 
the  close  of  the  twelfth  century.  Theophylact 
lived  more  than  a  hundred  years  earlier,  and  is 
pronounced  by  Mosheim  and  Neander  the  most  dis- 
tinguished exegetical  writer  of  his  age;  and  Theo- 
phylact says  that  these  Jewish  purifications  before 
eating  were  performed  by  mere  hand-icashings.  He 
designates  them  by  the  word  niptesthai, — a  word 
which,  according  to  Beza,  (as  quoted  by  Dr.  Fuller 
himself,)  has  respect  only  to  the  hands. 

But  we  go  back  six  hundred  years  further  still. 
We  point  Dr.  Fuller  to  the  oldest  but  one,  if  not 
the  very  oldest,  existing  copy  of  the  Bible  itself, — 
to  a  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament  which,  for 
its  internal  excellence  and  nearest  approach  to  the 
older  Greek  copies,  was  preferred  by  Michaelis  to 
all  others, — to  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  We  point  him 
also  to  eight  other  ancient  copies,  as  also  to  Eu- 
themius  the  Isaurian, — all  of  which  have  ranti- 
soNTAi  in  the  place  of  baptisontai.     "When  they 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  159 

come  from  the  market,  except'  they  sprinkle  thein- 
selves  they  eat  not."  And,  surely,  if  the  old  Greek 
transcribers  thirteen  hundred  years  ago  considered 
the  word  baptism  in  this  passage  as  the  proper 
equivalent  of  sprinkling,  it  ought  to  settle  the  case. 
If  Dr.  Fuller  really  entertains  the  reverence  for 
authority  which  he  professes,  let  him  bow  before 
it  and  confess  that  baptizo  does  not  here  mean  a 
total  immersion  and  nothing  else. 

But  "  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews"  not  only 
baptized  or  purified  themselves;  they  had  also 
received  to  hold  many  like  things,  such  as  "the 
baptizing  or  purifying  [baptismous'\  of  cups  and  pots, 
brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables."  As  to  these  cups, 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  they  may  have  been  im- 
mersed or  not,  as  circumstances  rendered  con- 
venient. We  suppose  they  ordinarily  were  im- 
mersed, because  this  was  the  most  convenient  and 
natural  mode  of  purifying  them.  Anastasius,  how- 
ever, gives  us  instances  in  which  such  vessels  were 
purified  simply  by  pouring  water  into  them,  and 
calls  such  a  purification  baptism.  (^Biblo.  Patrum, 
vol.  V.  p.  958.)  According  to  the  laws,  the  purifi- 
cation of  polluted  vessels  was  performed  in  divers 
ways,  as  may  be  seen  from  Levit.  vi.  28,  xv.  12, 
xi.  32. 

But  what  shall  be  said  of  the  ''tables"?  Dr. 
Fuller  tells  us  not  to  think  of  "our  massive  ma- 
hogany furniture,"  and  wishes  to  make  his  readers 
believe  that  nothing  more  is  meant  than  "  a  round 
piece  of  leather"!  (P.  60.)  Professor  Curtis  of 
Lcwisburg,  Pa.,  diff'ers  from  him,  and  tells  us  it  was 
"a  cotton  guilt" !  (P.  194.)    And,  by  the  time  our 


160  THK   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAxMlNED. 

Baptist  friends  get  through  with  their  investi- 
gations, there  is  no  telling  what  it  will  not  mean. 
But,  if  Di*.  Fuller  had  given  attention  to  the  au 
thority  which  he  quotes  in  the  very  next  para- 
graph of  his  book,  he  would  have  found  a  hint 
which  would  have  saved  him  his  "round  piece  of 
leather." 

Maimonides  says,  "Every  vessel  of  wood  which  ia 
made  for  the  use  of  man,  as  a  table,  receives  defile- 
ment." After  all,  it  seems  that  a  Jewish  '^  table" 
was  made  "0/  loood,"  and  that  it  was  a  very  differ- 
ent thing  from  "a  round  piece  of  leather,  spread 
upon  the  floor,  upon  which  is  placed  a  sort  of 
stool,  supporting  nothing  but  a  platter."  How 
'^massive"  Dr.  Fuller's  "mahogany  furniture"  may 
be,  we  know  not.  He  claims  to  be  something  out 
of  the  ordinary  line  of  Baptists,  and  advocates  a 
system  very  different  from  that  held  by  the  great 
majority  of  Christians;  and  it  may  be  that  his 
"mahogany  furniture"  is  also  something  out  of  the 
common  order  of  things.  But  we  do  know  that, 
especially  among  the  wealthier  Pharisees, — the 
very  parties  concerned  in  the  passage  before  us, — 
the  "  tables"  in  use  were  cumbersome  wooden  struc- 
tures, from  eight  to  twent}''  feet  in  length,  about 
four  feet  wide,  and  about  three  or  four  feet  high. 
(See  Watson's  Dictionary,  art.  "Banquet;"  Home's 
Introduction,  vol.  ii.  part  4,  eh.  1,  sec.  4;  and  Com- 
prehensive Commentary  on  John  xiii.  23,  25.)  And 
whether  such  articles  were  ordinarily  submerged 
in  water  after  every  meal  we  ask  the  reflecting  to 
judge. 

But  the  word  klinon,  here  rendered  tables,  does 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.  161 

not  properly  mean  the  tables  on  which  food  was 
placed,  but  the  couches,  sofas,  and  cushions  on  which 
the  guests  reclined  whilst  eating.  Dr.  Fuller  be- 
comes very  impatient  under  this  fact,  and  says,  "I 
don't  care  what  it  means.  The  Bible  says  they  im- 
mersed the  articles;  and  this  is  enough."  (P.  61.) 
Take  it  easy,  Doctor:  the  Bible  says  no  such  thing. 
That  awkward  and  equivocal  Latin  word  immerse 
is  not  in  the  Bible,  and  never  will  be  there  until 
Baptists  are  allowed  to  carry  into  effect  that 
cherished  wish  of  their  hearts, — to  wit,  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  word  of  God  to  their  miserable  sec- 
tai'ian  system.  The  word  klinon  means  couches  or 
beds,  and  the  Bible  says  that  the  Jews  baptized 
them;  and  we  wish  the  reader  to  inquire  into  the 
character  of  these  articles,  in  order  to  make  up 
his  mind  as  to  whether  that  baptism  was  a  total 
immersion.  What  were  these  couches?  The 
learned  Home  thus  refers  to  them: — "The  more 
opulent  had  (as  those  in  the  East  still  have)  fine 
carpets,  couches,  or  divans,  and  sofas,  on  which 
they  sa^,  lay,  and  slept.  In  later  times  their  couches 
were  splendid,  and  the  frames  inlaid  with  ivory, 
and  the  coverlets  rich  and  perfumed.  On  these 
sofas,  in  the  latter  ages  of  the  Jewish  State,  [the 
very  period  to  which  this  text  relates,]  they  uni- 
versally reclined  when  taking  their  meals,  resting 
on  their  side  with  their  heads  toward  the  table." 
(Int.  vol.  ii.  p.  154.) 

Smith,  in  his  Dictionary  of  Antiquities,  says, 
"The  klincB  is,  properly  speaking,  only  the  bed- 
stead, and  seems  to  have  consisted  of  posts  fitted 
into  one  another,  resting  upon  four  feet.     It  was 

14» 


162  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

generally  made  of  wood,  solid  or  veneered,  and 
sometimes  had  silver  feet." 

Watson  thus  describes  them : — "  Eound  the 
tables  were  placed  beds  or  couches,  one  to  each 
table :  each  of  these  beds  was  called  clinium.  At 
the  end  of  each  clinium  was  a  footstool,  for  the  con- 
venience of  mounting  up  to  it.  These  beds  were 
formed  of  mattresses  and  supported  on  frames  of 
wood,  often  highly  ornamented.  The  mattresses 
were  covered  with  cloth  or  tapestry,  according  to 
the  quality  of  the  entertainer."  (Theol.  Diet.  art. 
"Banquet.")  Even  Mr.  Carson,  one  of  Dr.  Fuller's 
guides,  freely  concedes  that  such  were  the  articles 
denoted  by  klinon.  Upon  these  couches,  too,  Cle- 
ment tells  us  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews 
often  to  be  baptized.  And  can  any  sober-minded 
man  suppose  that  such  "splendid"  articles  were 
subject  to  daily  immersions,  and,  above  all,  with 
men  reclining  on  them  ?  If  not,  then  haptizo  here 
signifies  only  to  purify,  and  that  in  some  mode  less 
troublesome  and  less  destructive  than  that  of  quite 
burying  them  in  the  water. 

Lightfoot  maintains  that  the  baptism  of  the 
couches  was  by  sprinkling. 

Another  passage  in  which  haptizo  occurs  is  Luke 
xi.  38: — "A  certain  Pharisee  besought  Jesus  to 
dine  with  him;  and  Jesus  went  in  and  sat  down  to 
meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it  he  marvelled 
that  Jesus  had  not  first  washed  [ebaptisthe']  before 
dinner."  Here  we  have  the  same  sort  of  purifi- 
cation spoken  of  in  the  preceding  passage.  Smith, 
in  his  Antiquities,  in  describing  a  Grecian  dinner, 
Bays,  "After  the  guests  had  placed  themselves  on 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  1G3 

the  klinai,  the  slaves  brought  in  water  to  wash  their 
hands."  The  custom  was  doubtless  the  same  in 
Judea  and  in  Greece.  Nay,  if  the  Jewish  lustra- 
tions were  ordinarily  performed  by  simply  washing 
their  hands,  even  when  returning  from  the  market, 
it  certainly  is  not  to  be  supposed  in  this  case  that 
Christ  was  expected  to  immerse  himself.  Kuinol 
says  that  the  existence  of  any  such  custom  as  that 
of  regular  immersion  before  all  meals  cannot  be 
proved.  Henry,  Burkitt^  and  Olshausen  under- 
stand mere  hand-washing  to  be  indicated.  The 
translators  "Wickliffe,  Tyndale,  Luther,  Cranmer, 
the  learned  authors  of  King  James's  version,  the 
editors  of  the  Geneva  Bible,  the  Eheims  version, 
and  even  the  version  given  out  by  the  distinguished 
champion  of  immersionism,  Alexander  Campbell, 
all  render  it  in  this  place  by  the  general  word  wash. 
Scapula,  Schoetgen,  Hedericus,  Schleusner,  Park- 
hurst,  Eobinson,  and  Bwing,  all  refer  in  their  lexi- 
cons to  this,  along  with  other  passages,  as  an 
instance  in  which  the  word  can  mean  nothing 
more  than  simply  to  wash  or  cleanse.  It  denotes 
no  more  than  a  common  ceremonial  purification, 
which  was  sufficiently  accomplished  by  a  simple 
wetting  of  the  hands. 

May  we  not  say,  then,  in  view  of  these  facts  and 
evidences,  that  it  is  proven  that  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment baptizo  has  a  diflPerent  meaning  from  that' of 
mere  immersion?     Who  can  doubt? 

We  would  ask  the  reader  to  consider  also,  in 
this  connection,  that  the  proper  Greek  words  for 
immersion — katapontizo,  katadumi,  katabaptizo,  and 
dupto — are  never  once  used  by  the  sacred  writers 


164  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

in  connection  with  the  sacrament  of  baptism  or 
any  religious  cleansing.  Why  is  this?  They 
everywhere  and  alwaj'S  have  the  very  '' unifocal 
meaning"  which  immersionists  assign  to  baptizo. 
What,  then,  is  the  reason  that  the  inspired  pen- 
men have  never  used  one  of  them  with  reference 
to  baptism?  Is  not  the  omission  significant?  Has 
not  this  divine  particularity,  in  using  only  baptizo, 
a  lesson  for  us?  Does  it  not  teach  us  that  there  is 
a  peculiarity  about  the  meaning  of  this  word  some- 
thing different  fi*om  the  simple  act  of  immersion? 


CHAPTEE  XIII. 

BAPTIZO     IN     THE     NEW     TESTAMENT  —  ITS     TRUE 
MEANING. 

Our  doctrine  is  that  baptizo,  with  its  derivatives, 
in  the  vocabulary  of  the  New  Testament,  is  a 
religious  word,  and,  wherever  literally  used,  is  used 
in  the  same  distinct  religious  sense.  Dr.  Carson 
concedes  that  "its  occurrence  in  profane  writers 
is  very  rare."  (P.  20.)  And  they  never  used  it  in  a 
strictly  religious  sense.  It  is  "  one  of  those  words 
whose  history  it  is  peculiarly  interesting  to  watch, 
as  they  obtain  a  deeper  meaning  and  receive  a 
new  consecration  in  the  Christian  Church,  which, 
even  while  it  did  not  invent,  has  assumed  them 
into  its  service  and  employed  them  in  a  far  loftier 
sense  than  any  to  which  the  world  had  ever  put 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  165 

them  before."  (Trench's  Synonyras,  p.  17.)  If  it 
meant  to  immerse  and  nothing  else,  it  would  un- 
questionably have  been  somewhere  interchanged 
with  other  Greek  words  which  have  this  specific 
signification.  It  is  never  so  interchanged.  Dr. 
Fuller  agrees  that  "the  Holy  Spirit  always,  in 
speaking  of  the  ordinance  [of  baptism],  uses  one 
single  word:  that  word  is  baptizo."  (P.  12.)  This 
fact  is  very  significant.  It  shows  conclusively 
that  this  word  is  not  the  synonym  of  dupto,  kata- 
pontizo,  katadumi,  katabaptizo,  or  any  other  word 
that  has  the  specific  signification  of  sinking  under 
water,  but  has  a  sense  peculiarly  and  pre-emi- 
nently its  own, — not  one  up  to  the  time  foreign  and 
unknown  to  this  word,  but  one  among  its  well- 
known  significations,  now  adopted,  fixed,  and  ever 
after  adhered  to  as  the  specific  sense  in  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  employs  it. 

Dr.  Fuller  affects  to  be  filled  with  holy  jealousy 
at  such  a  doctrine.  Though  its  truth  is  so  dis- 
tinctly indicated  by  the  acts  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  does  not  condescend  to  pay  it  common  re- 
spect. He  will  not  call  it  "amusing  absurdity" 
and  "ridiculous  sophistry:"  the  subject  is  "too 
solemn"  for  that.  It  is  presented  as  something 
with  horns  and  split  hoofs;  a  black  spirit  from  the 
under-world,  bearing  the  name  of  blasphemy; 
"an  IMPIETY  which  ought  to  fill  a  pious  mind  with 
horror"!  (P.  32.)  But  harsh  exclamations,  and 
the  application  of  evil  names,  are  not  arguments. 
With  all  Dr.  Fuller's  "hue  and  cry"  about  ab- 
surdity, sophistry,  and  horrible  impiety,  we  main- 
tain that  baptizo  has  a  religious  sense, — a  peculiar, 


166  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

settled,  and  specific  religious  signification.  And 
so  have  nearly  all  the  translators  believed,  and 
acted  on  that  belief.  Jerome,  Beza,  the  author 
of  the  old  Italic  version,  Wicklifie,  Tindale,  Cran- 
mer,  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  King  James's  trans- 
lators, have  all  transferred  the  M'ord  without 
translating  it,  except  in  one  or  two  instances  in 
which  it  applies  to  religious  washings.  Horri- 
ble impietists  these  must  have  been,  to  agree 
that  baptizo  in  the  Savior's  lips  was  a  word  so 
peculiar  in  its  application  as  not  to  be  capable 
of  an  exact  translation  by  any  one  verb  either  in 
Latin,  Italic,  or  English!  Hedericus  assigns  it  a 
specific  religious  sense  in  his  lexicon.  Parkhurst, 
Schleusner,  Eobinson,  and  others  do  the  same. 
And  an  able  critic,  in  the  "  Congregational  Maga- 
zine," some  years  ago,  gave  an  argument,  which 
Dr.  Carson  failed  to  set  aside,  proving  "  that  the 
context  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament  is 
never  that  which  is  used,  both  in  the  classics  and 
in  the  Scriptures,  to  connect  verbs  signifying  to  dip 
with  that  into  which  any  object  is  dipped;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  the  context  is  always  of  a  kind 
which  proves  that  literally  it  means  some  effect 
produced  by  water.  Where  bapto  and  baptizo  sig- 
nify to  dip,  the  context  is  eis,  with  that  into  which 
the  object  is  dipped, — as  we  should  say,  he  dipped 
into  water,  &c.  But  this  constructioji  does  not  once 
occur  in  the  use  of  baptizo  in  the  Septuagint  and  the 
New  Testament."  Even  Carson  himself  admits 
that  immersion  and  baptism  are  not  synonymous 
words.  He  says  that  they  "are  any  thing  rather 
than   synonymous."    (P.  383.)      The    testimony, 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    NEAV   TESTAMENT.  1C7 

therefore,  is  perfectly  conclusive,  that  baptizo  in 
the  New  Testament  is  used  in  a  somewhat  peculiar 
way;  that  it  is  a  religious  word,  with  its  own 
distinct  religious  sense. 

We  have  just  argued  that  baptizo  was  not  used 
by  the  inspired  writers  to  signify  a  total  immer- 
sion and  nothing  else,  because  they  have  never 
used  it  interchangeably  with  other  words  which 
have  this  specific  signification.  Upon  the  same 
principle  we  argue  that,  if  an  instance  can  be 
found  in  which  the  sacred  penmen  use  it  inter- 
changeably with  any  other  word,  that  word  must 
give  its  true  scriptural,  religious  sense,  its  proper, 
technical,  New  Testament  signification.  Have  we 
any  such  instance?     "VVe  have. 

Let  the  reader  turn  to  John  iii.  22  and  read 
from  that  on  to  John  iv.  3.  The  apostle  here 
tells  us  that  John  the  Baptist  was  baptizing  at 
Enon,  and  that  Jesus  was  also  engaged  in  bap- 
tizing-^at  least,  by  his  disciples — in  the  same 
vicinity.  John  had  been  baptizing  great  multi- 
tudes; but  it  seems  that  at  this  time  the  public 
attention  was  somewhat  diverted  from  John's  bap- 
tism to  that  of  the  Savior.  A  sort  of  jealousy 
was  engendered  in  some  of  John's  disciples  by  this 
turn  in  the  current  of  popular  favor,  and  they 
began  to  speak  of  it.  A  dispute  arose  about  the 
relative  merits  of  John's  baptism  and  Christ's 
baptism.  And  this  dispute  about  baptism  the 
sacred  writer  terms  "a  question  peri  katharis- 
Mou," — about  PURIFYING.  Of  course,  it  could  not 
have  been  a  question  about  purification  in  general: 
that   is  altogether  foreign   to   the   scope   of  the 


168  THE    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

passage.  It  was  baptism  that  gave  rise  to  the 
dispute;  and  baptism  was  the  subject  with  which 
the  disputants,  on  the  one  side  at  least,  went  to 
John  to  complain.  (John  v.  26.)  It  necessarily  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  the  subject  of  their  dispute 
was  baptism.  Chrysostom,  Gregory  of  jNyssa,  and 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  testify  expressly,  in  comment- 
ing upon  this  passage,  that  the  question  concern- 
ing purification  was  simply  and  only  a  question 
concerning  baptism.  Theophylact  says  of  John's 
disciples  and  the  Jews  on  this  occasion  that  they 
"disputed  concerning  purification;  that  is,  bap- 
tism." Olshausen  says,  "The  dispute  related  to 
baptism."  Dr.  Beecher  says,  "  The  dispute  in 
question  was  plainly  a  specific  dispute  concerning 
baptism  as  practiced  by  Jesus  and  John."  Schleus- 
ner,  Wahl,  Yater,  Eosenmiiller,  De  Wette,  Bret- 
schneider,  and  Kuinol,  all  say  that  baptism  was 
the  only  subject  of  the  question.  Grotius,  Beza, 
Whitby,  Doederline,  Burkitt,  Clarke,  and  Henry 
take  the  same  view.  Eosenmuller,  Yater,  Kuinol, 
and  Schleusner  give  baptism  as  the  proper  trans- 
lation of  katharismou  in  this  passage.  Even  Pro- 
fessor Eiplcy  himself,  nay,  all  that  have  ven- 
tured to  comment  upon  this  text,  so  far  as  we 
know^,  Mr.  Carson  alone  excepted,  in  some  way  or 
other  make  katharis7nou  here  mean  baptism,  ^j 
no  just  laws  of  interpretation  can  it  be  made  to 
mean  any  thing  else.  And,  whether  we  put  bap- 
tism in  the  place  of  the  word  purifying,  or  put 
purify  in  the  place  of  baptize,  the  sense  remains 
the  same. 
Here,  then,  is  a  divine  key  to  unlock  to  us  the 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  169 

(rue  religious  sense  of  baptizo.  By  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  it  has  its  equivalent  and  synonym 
in  katharizo,  which  means  to  purify.  The  dispute 
of  which  the  apostle  speaks  was  not  a  dispute 
about  "  a  total  immersion  and  nothing  else,"  but  a 
dispute  about  purifying.  That  purifjnng  was  the 
religious  rite  of  baptism  as  practiced  both  by  Christ 
and  his  forerunner.  It  follows,  therefore,  with 
inevitable  certainty, — and  that  not  from  heathen 
classics  or  modern  Jewish  paraphrasts,  but  from 
the  infallible  word  of  God  itself, — that  the  true 
religious  sense  of  baptizo  is  religious  purification. 
If  this  is  "horrible  impiety,"  let  Dr.  Fuller  make  the 
most  of  it. 

Another  word  given  in  the  Scriptures  as  equiva- 
lent to  baptizo  is  dikaioo,  to  clear,  justify,  to  de- 
clare innocent,  and  hence  also  to  purify.  In 
Hebrews  ix.  10  the  writer  makes  diaphorois  bap- 
tismois  (divers  baptisms)  the  exact  equivalent  of 
dikaiomasi  sarkos  (clearings  of  the  flesh).  He  is 
speaking  of  the  external  expiations  and  lustra- 
tions prescribed  in  the  Jewish  law.  He  calls 
them  all  baptisms;  and  these  outward  baptisms  he 
calls  clearings  or  purify ings  of  the  flesh.  It  is  true, 
in  the  English  Bible  the  word  "and"  comes  be- 
tween these  two  expressions,  as  if  the  writer 
designed  to  designate  two  distinct  departments  in 
the  legal  services  of  which  he  is  speaking.  But  Gries- 
bach  altogether  rejects  this  "and"  (kai),  as  not  a 
genuine  reading.  Professor  Stuart  takes  the  same 
view,  and  renders  the  passage  "meats  and  drinks 
and  divers  washings  [baptisms'], — ordinances  pertain- 
ing to  the  flesh."     The  Syriac  version,  according  to 

15 


170  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

Murdock's  translation  of  it,  is  very  clear  in  this 
view.  After  the  reference  to  meats  and  drinks 
and  baptisms,  it  has  this  unequivocal  phrase: — 
"WHICH  WERE  carnal  ordinances."  In  a  tract  be- 
fore us,  from  a  doctor  of  divinity  in  the  city  of 
Baltimore,  the  passage  is  rendered  "meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  baptisms,  [even]  justifications 
[or  purifications]  of  the  flesh."  Dr.  Carson  agrees 
that  kai  "  often  signifies  even."  (P.  69.)  And  it  is 
evident  to  all  who  will  examine  that  this  must  be 
the  true  reading,  because  there  are  no  justifica- 
tions or  purifyings  of  the  flesh  prescribed  in  all 
the  Jewish  law  which  are  not  completely  included 
"in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  baptisms."  Bap- 
tismois  and  dikaiomasi  are  therefore  interchange- 
able terms.  At  least  the  Holy  Ghost  employs  the 
one  to  explain  the  other.  Dikaioma  nowhere,  to 
our  knowledge,  means  immersion  or  any  thing 
like  it.  It  means  a  judicial  clearing.  In  Eom.  ii. 
26,  V.  18,  viii.  4,  and  Eev.  xix.  8,  it  is  rendered 
righteousness;  in  many  places,  justify;  in  Eom.  vi. 
7,  freed.  All  these  are  also  meanings  of  katharizo. 
And,  if  these  words  explain  the  meaning  of  hap- 
tizo,  a  religious  purifying  is  certainly  its  sense. 
There  can  be  no  escape  from  this  argument. 

Again:  in  1  Cor.  xii.  13  the  Holy  Ghost  him- 
self is  presented  as  a  baptizer : — "  For  by  one  Spirit 
we  are  all  baptized  [ebaptisthamen']."  Is  the  Holy 
Spirit  an  immerser  or  plunger?  No;  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  sanctifier,  a  purifier.  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  28; 
Eom.  XV.  16;  1  Pet.  i.  2.)  "The  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  gays  Brown,  "  denotes  not  only  the 
miraculous  collation  of  the  influences  of  the  blessed 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  171 

Spirit,  whei-eby  the  New  Testament  Church  w^as 
solemnly  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God,  but 
chiefly  his  gracious  influences,  which,  like  fire, 
purify,  soften,  and  inflame  our  heart  with  love  to 
Jesus,  and  wash  away  our  sin,  and  enable  us  to 
join  ourselves  to  him  and  his  people."  When, 
therefore,  the  fulfillment  of  these  offices  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  upon  the  recovered  sinner  is  called 
baptism,  are  we  not  bound  to  interpret  the  word 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  ofiices  and  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit?  If  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  to  purify,  and  God  calls  that  purification 
baptism,  is  it  not  a  clear  and  palpable  demonstra- 
tion that  in  God's  mouth  the  terms  are  convertible, 
and  that  haptizo  in  its  proper  religious  sense  means 
purification  ? 

There  is  also  a  passage  in  the  first  chapter  of 
John,  verses  19-28,  which  remains  exceedingly 
obscure  until  we  give  to  baptizo  its  proper  signifi- 
cation of  purify.  The  authorities  of  the  Jewish 
people  sent  a  deputation  to  John  the  Baptist,  to 
ascertain  from  him  his  true  official  character  and 
position.  They  asked  him  whether  he  w^as  Elijah, 
mistaking  as  they  did  the  true  irai^ort  of  the  pre- 
diction in  Malachi  iv.  5,  6.  John  said  he  was  not. 
They  asked  him  whether  he  was  that  prophet 
foretold  by  Moses  in  Deuteronomy  xviii.  15.  He 
answered  again  he  was  not.  They  then  asked 
him,  "  Why  baptizest  [baptizeis']  thou,  then,  if  thou 
be  not  the  Christ  nor  Elijah,  neither,  that  prophet?" 
What  does  this  mean?  What  had  been  said  by 
the  ancient  prophets  concerning  Christ  and  his 
forerunner,  that  led  the  Jewish  officials  to  suppose 


172  THE    BAiniST    bVSTEM    EXAMINKD. 

that  these  predictions  were  verified  in  John's  work 
of  baptizing?  Had  God's  messenger  been  pre- 
dicted as  an  immerser?  No.  Had  Christ  been 
predicted  as  an  immerser?  No.  In  wliat  j^eculiar 
character,  then,  had  they  been  predicted,  to  give 
rise  to  this  singular  question?  One  passage  in 
Malachi  iii.  1-3  will  solve  the  whole  diflScultj'-.  In 
that  passage  the  Savior  is  foretold  as  a  purifier, 
likened  to  "a  refiner's  fire  and  fuller's  soap,"  who 
should  "sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver," 
who  should  "PURIFY  the  sons  of  Levi  and  purge  them 
as  gold  and  silver."  See  also  Isa.  i.  25,  iv.  4;  Zech. 
xiii.  9;  Matt.  iii.  10,  12;  and  Lightfoot's  large  col- 
lection of  Eabbinical  passages  on  this  point.  Ac- 
cording to  these  prophecies,  the  Jews  universally 
expected  both  Elijah  and  Christ  in  the  ofiicial 
character  of  purifiers.  And  when  they  put  the 
question  to  John,  why  he  baptized  if  he  Avas 
neither  Christ  nor  Elijah,  they  doubtless  used  the 
word  in  the  sense  of  the  prophecies  which  led 
them  to  ask  the  question,  and  the  nature  of  the 
case  requires  ns  to  assign  it  the  only  intelligible 
sense  of  purification. 

There  are  yet  a  couple  of  passages  which  at  least 
approach  a  definition  of  baptism,  to  which  we 
invite  attention.  The  one  is  Eph.  v.  26,  the  other 
is  Titus  iii.  5.  That  these  texts  refer  directly  to 
baptism  is  agreed  by  the  best  interpreters,  and 
cannot  be  successfully  denied.  Mr.  Campbell  admits 
that  they  do;  and,  if  we  are  not  mistaken  in  our 
recollection,  so  does  Dr.  Carson.  But  these  pass- 
ages not  only  refer  to  baptism;  they  describe  and 
define  it.     But  do  they  speak  of  it  as  immersion  ? 


BAPTIZO   IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  173 

No.  Do  they  connect  immersion  with  it  as  an 
essential  part  of  it?  No.  The  first  says  it  is  a 
sanctification,  a  cleansing,  a  catliarism  (catharisios), 
"  with  the  washing  [loutro]  of  water  in  or  by  the 
word."  The  other  says  it  is  "the  washing  [lou- 
tron^  of  regeneration."  Who,  but  one  bent  upon 
the  support  of  a  sectarian  system  right  or  wrong, 
would  ever  think  of  finding  immersion  in  these 
texts  ?  It  is  not  in  them.  We  have  already  given 
the  meaning  of  louo  or  loutron.  (See  Chapter  Y., 
on  the  case  of  Naaman.)  Immersion  is  no  part  of 
its  meaning.  Galerius  in  his  lexicon  says  it  signi- 
fies "not  only  to  wash  or  bathe,  but  also  to 
moisten,  foment,  pour,  or  sprinkle."  Basil  applies 
it  to  denote  the  baptism  of  Ariantheus  the  praetor, 
who  was  converted  on  his  death-bed,  who  was  bap- 
tized by  sprinkling.  (See  his  Letter  386.)  Julius 
Pollux,  seq.,  46,  lib.  10,  cap.  10,  uses  it  to  designate 
basins  used  for  washing  the  hands  and  face.  Zo- 
naras  defines  loutron  to  mean  "any  thing  which 
produces  the  removal  of  impurity."  What,  then, 
is  a  religious  loutron  but  a  religious  cleansing  or 
purifying  ? 

Now,  what  higher  authority  as  to  the  scriptural 
meaning  of  baptism  is  there  upon  this  earth  than 
these  passages?  They  may  be  called  God's  own 
definition  of  the  word  and  the  sacrament  of 
which  it  is  the  name.  And,  gathering  up  what 
they  teach  on  the  subject  in  dispute,  we  are  shut 
up  and  compelled  to  say  that  the  Christian,  Bibli- 
cal, and  divine  sense  of  haptizo  is  a  religious  catha 
rism,  cleansing,  washing,  or  purifying. 

Apart  from  its  religious  application,  this  mean- 
is* 


174  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTKM    EXAMINED. 

ing  was  not  first  attached  to  this  word  by  the  wri- 
ters of  the  New  Testament.  We  have  sufficiently- 
set  forth  this  fact  in  our  preceding  discussion.  Dr. 
Carson  admits  that  in  confining  baptizo  to  the  ex- 
clusive modal  sense  of  dip,  he  has  "all  the  lexi- 
cographers and  commentators  against"  him.  Mr. 
George  "Wilson,  who  styles  himself  "an  exiled 
minister  of  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church/'  and 
who  has  volunteered  to  furnish  us  with  his  lucu- 
brations in  support  of  immersion  baptism,  says, 
"That  baptizo  is  frequently  used  where  the  design 
of  the  action  was  to  tcash,  we  have  no  reason  to 
dispute."  (P.  95.)  We  have  shown  that  the  word 
bapto,  from  which  baptizo  is  derived,  has  the  signi- 
fications of  icash,  cleanse,  wet,  moisten,  and  bedeio. 
We  have  shown  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  addi- 
tion of  zo  or  izo  to  exclude  or  augment  this  sense. 
We  have  shown,  by  more  than  twenty  lexicons, 
and  as  many  authorities  additional,  that  icash, 
cleanse,  purify  is  one  of  the  plain  and  common 
significations  of  this  disputed  word.  We  have 
demonstrated,  from  the  Alexandrine  or  Hebraic 
Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and  patristic  writers, 
that  wash,  cleanse,  and  purify,  especially  in  a  re- 
ligious sense,  is  one  of  the  commonest  and  the 
almost  exclusive  sense  in  which  the  word  is 
employed  in  that  kind  of  Greek  writing.  It  was 
therefore  neither  far-fetched  nor  violent,  but  natu- 
ral, easy,  and  very  much  demanded  by  the  nature 
of  the  case,  for  the  Holy  Ghost  to  take  up  and 
employ  this  word  always  in  the  same  specific 
sense  of  a  religious  cleansing,  washing,  or  purifi 
cation. 


BAPTiZU    IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  175 

But  even  if  baptizo  had  never  been  used  in  this 
sense  previous  to  its  introduction  into  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  it  is  80  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a 
fixed  fact,  which  no  ingenuity  or  eloquence  on  earth 
can  unsettle.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  used  by  the 
inspired  John  as  the  synonym  of  katharizo,  which 
means  only  to  cleanse,  especially  in  a  religious, 
legal,  or  ceremonial  sense.  Paul  employs  it  to  de- 
note the  work  of  God's  Spirit  in  the  sinner's  heart, 
which  is  a  purification,  and  not  an  immersion.  John 
is  again  and  again  called  the  baptizer,  and  was 
supposed  to  be  either  Elias  or  the  Christ  simply 
because  he  cleansed  Israel  by  a  religious  purifying. 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  calls 
all  the  various  sprinklings,  expiations,  and  lustra- 
tions under  the  Jewish  law,  many  of  which 
certainly  were  not  immersions,  divers  baptisms, 
only  because  they  were  purifications.  The  Pharisaic 
washing  of  hands  before  eating,  the  washing  of 
pots  and  cups  and  brazen  vessels,  and  the  sprink- 
ling of  beds  and  couches,  are  all  called  baptisms, 
upon  no  other  ground  than  that  they  were  cere- 
monial ^wn^cations.  Christ  himself  is  said  to  have 
been  baptized  (with  water  by  John,  and  with  blood 
and  agony  in  Gethsemane  and  on  the  cross)  for 
the  expressed  purpose,  and  only  in  this  respect, 
that  he  might  fulfill  all  righteousness,  (Matt.  iii.  15,) 
and  be  perfected  through  sufferings,  (Heb.  ii.  10,) 
and  have  effected  in  himself  the  great  purgation 
through  which  those  who  are  in  him  are  justified 
and  purified  forever.  The  Israelites  are  said  to 
have  been  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea,  because,  according  to  Yitringa,  AYolf,  Ben- 


176  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

gel,  Eosenmiiller,  Semler,  Schleusner,  and  others, 
they  were  therehy  initiated  into  the  religion 
which  Moses  taught,  ransomed  from  their  degra- 
dation and  bondage  in  Egypt,  absolved  from  their 
old  taskmasters,  consecrated  as  God's  peculiar 
people,  purified  from  their  former  associations  with 
the  heathen,  and,  by  a  wonderful  divine  inter- 
position, separated  from  the  vile  and  blaspheming, 
as  a  people  henceforth  and  forever  specially 
ordained  to  hear  God's  messengers  and  to  obey 
God's  law.  That  baptism  was  not  an  immersion; 
the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  alone  were  immersed;  but  it 
was  a  mysterious  consecration,  an  absolution,  an 
induction  into  a  new  and  holier  state,  a  purification. 
Augustine  (Serm.  de  Catach.,  vol.  ix.  p.  320,  Paris, 
1586)  speaks  of  it  as  a  '^  salvation  by  xcater." 
"One  element,"  says  he,  "by  the  command  of  the 
Creator,  judged  both;  for  it  separated  the  righteous 
from  the  wicked.  The  former  it  washed,  the  latter 
it  overwhelmed;  the  former  it  purified,  the  latter 
it  destroyed."  Hilary  paraphrases  the  words 
thus: — "Their  past  sins  were  not  imputed  to 
them,  but  they  were  purified  [purificati^  by  the 
cloud  and  by  the  sea."  In  the  same  way,  in  Rom. 
vi.  3-11,  Christians  are  said  to  be  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  because  in  him  their  old  body  of  sin 
is  destroj'ed,  their  guilt  absolved,  their  impurities 
purged  out,  and  a  glorious  renovation  effected. 
There  can  be  no  immersion  in  Christ,  nor  yet  in 
the  death  of  Christ;  but  there  is  absolution  in 
Christ  and  his  death,  and  purification;  for  his 
blood  cleanseth  from  all  sin.  And  there  is  not  a 
single  instance  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 


BAPTIZO    IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  177 

baptizo  is  literally  used,  where  it  does  not  natu- 
rally, if  not  necessarily,  take  the  sense  of  religious 
purification. 

The  testimony  from  the  Fathers  that  baptizo 
has  the  sense  of  katharizo,  and  in  Christian  lan- 
guage means  a  religious  purifying,  « is  almost 
without  limit,  as  Dr.  Beecher  has  satisfactorily 
shown. 

Take  the  lexicographers  Zonaras  and  Phavorinus. 
They  were  not  among  the  early  Fathers,  but  they 
give  us  dictionaries  founded  on  the  early  Fathei'S. 
Zonaras  was  one  of  the  four  leading  Byzantine 
historians.  He  wrote  annals  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  down  to  a.d.  1118,  and  various  com- 
mentaries on  apostolic  canons,  decrees  of  councils, 
&c.  Tittman  says  of  his  lexicon,  "I  consider  it, 
after  that  of  Hesychius,  the  most  learned  of  all 
others  that  survive,  the  most  copious  and  most 
accurate."  And  yet  these  great  lexicographers 
say  not  one  word  about  immersion  in  connection 
with  baptism.  They  define  ^'baptisma, — the  remis- 
sion of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit,  the  unspeak- 
able forgiveness  of  sins,  the  loosing  of  the  bond  [of 
sin]  granted  by  the  love  of  God  toward  men,  the 
voluntary  arrangement  of  a  new  life  toward  God, 
the  releasing  or  recovery  of  the  soul  to  that  which 
is  better, — to  holiness."  AW  these  are  exact  defi- 
nitions of  religious  purifying.  They  are  all  mean- 
ings of  katharizo.  And  surely  those  words  must 
be  synonymous  to  which  the  same  definitions  are 
given. 

But  these  are  not  the  mere  opinions  of  Zonaras 
and  Phavorinus.     They  are  taken  almost  literally 


178  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

from  the  Fathers.  Basil,  on  Isaiah  iv.  4,  sets  him- 
self to  give  a  formal  and  comprehensive  definition 
of  the  whole  import  of  baptisma.  In  this  definition 
he  gives  three  significations  or  applications  of  the 
word,  in  each  of  which  the  idea  of  purification  is 
the  uppermost.  He  says  that  baptism  means  puri- 
fication from  filth,  spiritual  purification,  (pneumatos 
anagennesis,)  and  purgation  or  trial  by  the  fire  of 
the  judgment.  Clement  calls  the  washing  of 
Penelope  and  the  wetting  of  the  hands  of  Tele- 
machus  with  sea-water,  in  Homer,  and  the  lus- 
trations of  the  Jews  whilst  reclining  on  (epi)  their 
couches,  baptisms,  certainly  not  because  they  were 
immersions, — they  were  not  immersions, — but  be- 
cause they  were  religious  purifyings.  Justin  Martyr 
calls  deliverance  from  evil  passions  a  baptism.  Ori- 
gen  calls  martyrdom  a  baptism.  Ambrose  calls 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb 
on  the  doors  in  Egypt  a  baptism.  Cyril  calls  the 
sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  on  the 
unclean  baptism.  Tertullian  calls  the  heathen  cere- 
monies of  sprinkling  themselves,  their  temples,  &c., 
baptisms.  Athanasius  calls  the  placing  of  John's 
hand  upon  the  Savior's  head  a  baptism.  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  in  his  thirty-ninth  discourse,  calls  mar- 
tyrdom, penance,  and  purgation  in  another  life 
baptisms.  Some  of  these  same  Fathers  call  the 
washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  by  Christ  a  baptism. 
How  can  all  this  be  explained  unless  we  take  the 
word  baptism  in  the  sense  of  religious  purification  ? 
Anastasius  says  he  would  not  hesitate  to  call 
mourning  a  baptism.  He  says  that  "afiliction, 
with  humility  and  silence,  is  a  baptism;"  and  the 


BAPTTZO    IN    THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.  179 

reason  he  assigns  is,  that  "  it  purifies  a  man."  Ter- 
tuliian  calls  the  water  and  blood  that  issued  from 
the  side  of  Christ  two  baptisms, — of  course  not  im- 
mersions, but  purifications  or  purifiers.  Maximus 
(vol.  ii.  p.  459,  Paris,  1675)  says  that  "sons  of 
thunder"  means  sons  of  baptism.  The  explanation 
he  gives  is,  that  thunder  is  composed  of  water  and 
air,  an  initiation  into  the  mystery  of  purification. 
His  philosophy  is  faulty  and  his  language  involved; 
but  the  passage  is  sufficient  to  show  that  he  con- 
sidered purification  the  proper  sense  of  the  word 
baptism.  Chrysostom  uses  it  interchangeably  with 
remission  and  reconciliation,  and  Cyprian  with  the 
words  washing  and  cleansing;  all  of  which  requires 
the  sense  of  purification.  Josephus,  also,  though 
not  a  Christian,  speaks  of  John's  baptism  as  a  puri- 
fication. (Ant.  lib.  xviii.  cap.  5,  sec.  2.)  Chrj'sos- 
tom,  in  his  thirty-third  Homily,  says  that  Christ 
"calls  his  cross  and  death  a  cup  and  baptism:  a 
cup,  because  he  readily  drank  it;  baptism,  because 
by  it  he  PURIFIED  the  world."  Theophylact,  on  Matt. 
XX.  22,  23,  says  that  Jesus  "calls  his  death  a  bap- 
tism, as  making  a  purification  or  expiation  [kathar- 
tikon]  for  all  of  us."  So  also,  on  Mark  x.  38,  39,  he 
says  that  Jesus  "calls  his  cross  baptism,  as  about  to 
make  a  purification  \katharismon'\  for  sin."  Gregory 
Nazianzen  speaks  of  Christ's  baptism  in  the  Jordan 
as  his  purification  [kathairomenon']  in  the  Jordan. 
Several  Fathers  call  the  tears  of  penitence  or  prayer 
baptism;  certainly  not  because  suppliants  were 
totally  immersed  in  them,  but  because,  as  Nilus, 
the  disciple  of  Chrysostom,  says,  they  are  "  good 
wash-basins  for  the  soul ;"  or,  as  Gregory  of  Nyssa 


180  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

says,  "fountains,  by  means  of  which  you  can  wash 
off  the  spots  and  pollutions  of  your  soul."  In  the 
passage  from  Origen  relative  to  the  baptism  of  the 
wood,  altar,  and  hewn  bullock  in  Elijah's  sacrifice, 
the  sense  of  purify  is  expressly  assigned  to  baptizo. 
The  passage  is  this: — "How  came  you  [the  Jews] 
to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would 
baptize,  who  did  not  himself  baptize  the  wood  upon 
the  altar  in  the  dnje,  of  Ahab,  although  it  needed  to 
be  PURIFIED,  but  commanded  the  priests  to  do  it?" 
Baptism  and  purification  are  here  used  interchange- 
ably with  each  other;  and  the  author  only  means 
to  aflfirm  that  the  baptizing  or  purifying  of  the 
wood  on  the  altar  was  not  performed  by  Elijah, 
himself,  but  by  the  priests. 

But  this  is  still  not  all.  The  command  in  Isaiah 
i.  16  is  a  command  to  wash,  make  clean,  and  put 
away  evil.  Justin  Martyr,  Cyril,  and  Hippolytus 
call  it  a  prophetic  injunction  of  baptism.  The 
promise  in  Ezekiel  xxvi.  25  is  a  promise  to  sprinkle 
with  clean  water  and  to  cleanse  from  filthiness  and 
idols.  Cyprian,  Jerome,  and  others  pronounce  it  a 
prediction  concerning  baptism.  This  application 
of  the  promise  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers.  AVhat  modern  Baptist 
would  not  feel  that  he  had  surrendered  his  creed 
and  abandoned  his  denomination  if  he  were  to 
make  the  same  apjDlication  ?  The  phrase  in  Isaiah 
liii.  15,  "He  shall  sprinkle  many  nations,"  Jerome 
applies  also  to  baptism.  He  thus  states  its  mean- 
ing:— "He  shall  sprinkle,  &c.,  cleansing  them  in  his 
own  blood,  and  by  baptism  consecrating  them  to  the 
service  of  God."      The  prophecy  in  Isaiah  iv.  4 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  181 

relates  to  purification  by  washing,  judgment,  and 
the  spirit  of  burning.  Basil,  Jerome,  Origen,  Eu- 
sebius,  and  Theodoret  call  it  baptism,  which  is 
partly  accomplished  in  the  present  life  and  partly 
in  the  life  to  come.  The  declaration  in  Psalm  Ixvi. 
10  speaks  only  of  the  process  by  which  metals  are 
freed  from  di'oss.  One  writing  in  the  name  of 
Chrysostom  calls  it  a  baptism;  "for,"  says  he,  "as 
gold  or  silver  is  purified  in  the  furnace  by  con- 
suming the  dross,  so  a  man  placed  in  the  furnace 
of  affliction  \s,  purified."  Malachi  iii.  3  speaks  only 
of  purifying  and  purging.  Theodoret  and  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  speak  of  it  as  a  prophecy  of  baptism, 
and  comment  upon  it  as  explaining  why  the  Jews 
demanded  of  John  why  he  baptized,  if  he  was  neither 
Elias  nor  the  Christ.  And  Athanasius  says,  ex- 
plicitly, "The  expression.  He  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  means  this,  that  he  shall 
PURIFY  you  [kathariei  humas']."  Indeed,  Cyprian  has 
this  broad  declaration, — that  "  as  often  as  water 
alone  is  mentioned  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  bap- 
tism is  alluded  to;"  "because,"  says  Isidore  Hispa- 
lensis,  "water  is  a  purifier,  and  is  the  only  element 
that  purifies  all  things."  Augustine,  also,  has  this 
passage : — "  When  we  say  that  Christ  baptizes,  we 
do  not  say  that  he  holds  and  washes  in  water 
the  body  of  the  believer,  but  that  he  invisibly 
purifies  him,  and  not  only  him,  but  the  whole 
Church." 

From  all  this  is  not  the  conclusion  inevitable 
that  baptizo,  as  a  religious  term,  does  not  mean  "a 
total  immersion  and  nothing  else,"  nor  yet  to 
sprinkle  or  pour,  but  to  purify,  without  limitation 

16 


182  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

as  to  mode?  Even  Maimonides,  upon  whom  Dr. 
Fuller  relies  so  much,  applies  the  word  baptism  to 
a  general  religious  purification.  "There  are  three 
things,"  says  he,  "  by  which  the  Israelites  entered 
into  covenant  with  God, — circumcision,  baptism, 
and  sacrifice.  Baptism  was  practiced  in  the  desert 
before  the  giving  of  the  law;  for  God  said  to  Moses, 
Sanctify  them."  (Issure  Biah,  Perek  13.)  Did 
Moses  immerse  the  people?  Certainly  not.  He 
only  commanded  them  to  purify  themselves  by 
taking  care  that  no  defilement  was  on  them,  by 
abstaining  from  all  fleshly  indulgences,  and  by 
washing  their  clothes,  repenting  of  their  sins,  and 
lifting  their  hearts  to  God.  And  this  general  ^un- 
fication  is  cited  as  an  instance  and  an  evidence  of 
Mosaic  baptism.  Indeed,  so  thoroughly  were  some 
of  the  translators  of  the  Bible  convinced  that  to 
baptize  is  to  purify,  that  the  Saxon  Testament  has 
John  le  FuUvbtere, — literally,  the  Scourer;  and  the 
Icelandic  translates  baptism  skira, — literally,  to 
scour;  that  is,  to  cleanse. 

Indeed,  all  respectable  versions  of  the  Kew  Tes- 
tament, fi'om  its  first  publication  until  now,  are 
against  the  Baptist  interpretation  of  baptizo.  The 
venerable  Peshito-Syriac  and  the  Philoxenian  ren- 
der it  by  amad, — the  primary  meaning  of  which, 
according  to  Schaaf's  Syriac  Lexicon,  is  abluo,  to 
wash  or  cleanse.  The  Syriac  w^ord  for  immerse  is 
tzeva;  but  it  is  never  employed  to  translate  baptizo. 
The  Arabic  uses  a  term  of  the  same  import  as  the 
Syriac  amad.  The  Persic  version  gives  for  baptizo 
a  word  meaning  to  wash.  The  Ethiopic,  the  Sa- 
hidic,  the  Basmuric,  the  Arminian,  the  German, 


BAPTIZO   IN    THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  183 

the  Swedish,  the  Danish,  the  English  in  all  its  old 
versions,  the  French,  the  Spanish,  and,  in  one 
place,  even  the  Ctxmi^hellitQ-Baptist  version,  give 
washing,  cleansing,  purifying,  or  words  to  this  effect, 
as  the  proper  equivalent  of  baptizo  in  the  New 
Testament.  They  could  not  do  otherwise  and 
remain  faithful  to  the  ti"uth.  And,  indeed,  as 
remarked  by  Dr.  Beecher,  the  idea  of  purification, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  is  better  adapted  to  be  the 
name  of  this  rite  than  immersion.  It  has  a  fitness 
and  verisimilitude,  in  all  its  extensive  variety  of 
usage,  which  cause  the  mind  to  feel  the  self-evi- 
dencing power  of  truth,  as  producing  harmony 
and  agreement  in  the  most  minute  as  well  as  in 
the  most  important  relations  of  the  various  parts 
of  this  subject  to  each  other.  First,  the  idea  of 
purification  is  the  fundamental  idea  in  the  whole 
subject.  Second,  it  is  an  idea  complete  and  defi- 
nite in  itself  in  every  sense,  and  needs  no  adjunct 
to  make  it  more  so.  Third,  it  is  the  soul  and 
centre  of  a  whole  circle  of  delightful  ideas  and 
words.  It  throws  out  before  the  mind  a  flood  of 
rich  and  glorious  thoughts,  and  is  adapted  to  ope- 
rate upon  the  feelings  like  a  perfect  charm.  To  a 
sinner  desiring  salvation,  what  two  ideas  so  delight- 
ful as  forgiveness  and  purity  ?  Both  are  condensed 
in  this  one  word.  It  involves  in  itself  a  deliverance 
from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  from  its  pollution.  It  is 
a  purification  from  sin  in  every  sense.  It  is  puri- 
fication by  the  atonement  and  purification  by  the 
truth, — by  water  and  by  blood.  And  around  these 
ideas  cluster  others  likewise,  of  holiness,  salvation, 
eternal  joy,  eternal  life.     No  other  word  can  pro- 


18-4  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

duce  such  delight  in  the  heart  and  send  snch  a 
flood  of  light  into  all  the  relations  of  divine  truth ; 
for  purity,  in  the  broad  Scripture  sense,  is  the  joy 
and  salvation  of  man  and  the  crowning  glory  ot 
God. 

Of  immersion  not  one  of  these  things  is  true.  K 
is  not  a  fundamental  idea  in  any  subject  or  system. 
By  itself  it  does  not  convey  any  one  fixed  idea,  but 
depends  on  its  adjuncts  and  varies  with  them. 
Immersion  !  In  what  ?  clean  water  or  filthy  ?  in  a 
dye-fluid,  or  inwune?  Until  these  questions  are 
answered  the  word  is  of  no  use.  And  with  the 
spiritual  sense  the  case  is  still  worse;  for  common 
usage  limits  it  in  English,  Latin,  Greek,  and,  so 
far  as  we  know,  in  all  languages,  by  its  adjuncts, 
of  a  kind  denoting  calamity  or  degradation,  and 
never  purity.  It  has  intimate  and  firmly-estab- 
lished associations  with  such  words  as  luxury, 
ease,  indolence,  sloth,  cares,  anxieties,  troubles, 
distresses,  sins,  pollution,  death.  "We  familiarly 
speak  of  immersion  and  sinking  in  all  these;  but 
with  their  opposites  the  idea  of  immersion  refuses 
alliance.  Sinking  and  downward  motion  are 
naturally  allied  with  ideas  which,  in  a  moral  sense, 
are  depressed  and  debased,  and  not  with  such  as 
are  elevated  and  pure.  And  for  what  reason  should 
the  God  of  order,  purity,  harmony,  and  taste  select 
an  idea  for  the  name  of  bis  own  beloved  rite  so 
alien  from  it,  and  reject  one  in  every  respect  so 
desirable  and  so  fit  ?  "Who  does  not  feel  that  the 
name  of  so  delightful  an  idea  as  purification  must 
be  the  name  of  the  rite  ?  And  who  does  not  rejoice 
that  there  is  proof  so  unanswerable  that  such  is  the 


SCRIPTURAL    HINTS   CONCKRXING    MODE.         185 

signification  of  the  word  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
everywhere  uses  to  denote  this  holy  Christian 
sacrament  ?     (See  Beecher  on  Bapt.  pp.  81,  82.) 

May  we  not  now  say  we  have  ascertained  the 
meaning  of  haptizo?  It  signifies  a  religious  wash' 
ing,  cleansing,  and  purifying.  At  any  rate,  Dr. 
Carson  concedes  that,  "  whatever  may  be  supposed 
the  meaning  of  the  name  of  this  rite,  it  is  in  its 
NATURE  a  rite  0/ purification."  (P.  471.) 


CHAPTEE  XIY. 

SCRIPTURAL   HINTS  CONCERNINO  MODE. 

After  what  has  now  been  said,  it  is  impossible 
for  any  man,  open  to  receive  the  truth,  not  to  be 
convinced  that  the  New  Testament  and  Christian 
use  of  baptizo  is  to  signify  a  religious  purifying, 
without  regard  to  mode.  That  the  sacred  and 
Christian  writers  have  used  it  in  this  sense,  and 
that  with  reference  to  purifyings  performed  in 
every  variety  of  mode,  is  settled, — may  we  not 
say  demonstrated?  It  is  not  a  matter  of  analogy 
or  inference,  but  a  matter  of  fact,  which  ten  thou- 
sand proofs  that  baptizo  among  the  old  heathen 
Greeks  originally  meant  to  immerse,  dip,  sink,  and 
drown  cannot  at  all  affect  or  set  aside ;  a  matter  of 
fact  so  fully  proven  and  so  firmly  established  that 
a  man  might  as  well  attempt  to  turn  the  course 
of  the  Mississippi  across  the  Eocky  Mountains,  or 
16«- 


186  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAiMINED. 

to  overthrow  the  eternal  hills,  as  to  undertake  to 
strike  it  from  among  the  fixed  verities  of  things. 
'Nor  should  it  be  thought  strange  or  remarkable 
that  a  word  which  once  so  frequently  meant  to  dip 
and  plunge  has  thus  passed  over  to  signify  a  re- 
ligious pui'ification,  without  regard  to  the  manner 
of  its  performance.  Dr.  Beecher  has  justly  re- 
marked that  "no  principle  is  more  universally 
admitted  by  all  sound  philologists  than  that  to 
establish  the  original  and  primitive  meaning  of  a 
word  is  not  at  all  decisive  as  regards  its  subse- 
quent usages;"  that  "it  is  too  plain  to  be  denied, 
that  words  do  often  so  far  depart  from  their  primi- 
tive meaning  as  entirely  to  leave  out  the  original 
idea;"  and  that  "such  transitions  are  particularly 
common  in  words  of  the  class  of  baptizo,  denoting 
action  by  or  with  reference  to  a  fluid."  We  will 
condense  a  few  of  his  examples.  Tingo  certainly 
once  meant  only  to  immerse  and  dip;  then  to  dye 
or  color,  as  ordinarily  performed  by  immersing  the 
articles  to  be  colored;  then  to  color  or  stain,  with- 
out reference  to  mode ;  and,  lastly,  it  gave  rise  to 
the  English  words  tinge  and  tint,  in  which  there  is 
not  the  least  thought  of  immersion.  The  original 
idea  of  wash  was  simply  to  cleanse  by  a  purifying 
fluid ;  afterward  it  came  to  signify  the  application 
of  a  superficial  coloring,  as  to  white  wash,  yellow- 
wash,  or  to  wash  with  silver  or  gold ;  and  finally 
it  has  come  into  a  use  where  the  original  idea  of 
purity  is  entirely  lost,  as  when  we  speak  of  the 
washes  of  a  cow-yard  or  from  the  streets.  Jjet  once 
meant  only  to  hinder;  now  it  means  only  to  permit. 
And  similar  transitions  may  be  traced  in  the  words 


SCRIPTURAL   HINTS   CONCERNING    MODE,        187 

conversation,  charity,  prevent,  &c.  Carson  says, 
"The  word  saucer,  from  signifying  a  small  vessel 
for  holding  sauce,  now  signifies  one  for  cooling 
tea;"  and  that  "the  foreigner  who  should  allege 
that  the  English  word  saucer  cannot  signify  a 
small  vessel  for  tea,  but  must  always  denote  one 
for  sauce,  would  reason  as  correctly  as  those  who 
attemj)t  to  force  bapto,  when  signifying  to  dye, 
always  to  look  back  to  its  origin."  (P.  49.)  Ex- 
actly so ;  and  the  wonder  is  that  he  could  not  be 
made  to  see  that  the  same  law  can  apply  to  baptize. 
Indeed,  this  doctrine  of  transition  in  the  meaning 
of  words  is  so  clear  and  undeniable  that  terrible 
havoc  would  be  made  with  modern  writing  to 
persist  in  interpreting  every  word  according  to  its 
etymology.  It  is  use,  not  derivation,  that  estab- 
lishes the  meaning  of  diction.  Nor  has  anybody 
expi'essed  this  better  than  Dr.  Carson  himself. 
*'Were  the  origin  of  bapto  to  be  traced,"  says  he, 
"even  with  the  utmost  certainty,  to  some  other 
word  or  words  of  the  language,  its  meaning  in  the 
language  must  be  determined  by  its  use  in  the 
language,  and  not  by  its  origin.  Words  often 
depart  widely  in  their  use  from  the  meaning  of  their 
root.  They  may  drop  some  idea  that  teas  at  first 
essential,  or  they  may  embrace  ideas  not  originally 
applied."  (P.  88.)  Again :  he  says,  "  Nothing  in 
the  history  of  words  is  more  common  than  to 
enlarge  or  diminish  their  signification.  Ideas  not 
originally  included  are  often  affixed,  while  others  drop 
IDEAS  ORIGINALLY  ASSERTED.  In  this  way  bapto, 
(the  very  word  from  which  baptizo  comes,)  from 
signifying  mere  mode,  came  to  be  applied  to  a  cer- 


188  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

tain  operation  usually  performed  in  that  mode : 
from  signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye  by 
dipping,  because  this  was  the  way  in  which  things 
were  usually  dyed ;  and  afterwards,  from  dyeing  by 
dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner.  A 
like  process  may  he  shown  in  the  history  of  a  thousand 
other  words."  (P.  44.) 

Well,  then,  if  this  is  a  process  so  clear  and  fur- 
nishes so  many  illustrations,  and  if  hapto,  "  from 
signifying  mere  mode,"  passed  to  the  signification 
only  of  an  effect  produced  "  in  any  manner,"  why 
could  not  its  derivative  baptizo  pass  through  a 
similar  transition,  from  signifying  immersion  to 
the  sense  of  cleansing  by  immersion,  and  from 
cleansing  by  immersion  to  the  sense  of  cleansing 
"  in  any  manner,"  to  denote  only  the  idea  of  puri- 
fication? Reasoning  from  analogy  or  from  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
such  a  transition.  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Beecher 
has  shown  that  circumstances  existed  prior  to  the 
time  of  Christ  rendering  such  a  transition  exceed- 
ingly probable.  And  that  baptizo  did  pass  through 
some  such  transition,  or  from  the  beginning  had 
associated  with  it  a  meaning  so  as  to  be  employed 
by  the  inspired  and  the  early  Christian  writers  to 
denote  simply  a  purification  without  limitation  as 
to  mode,  is  abundantly  proven  by  the  conclusive 
arguments  presented  in  the  preceding  chapters. 

This  one  fact,  then,  efi'ectually  and  forever  dis- 
poses of  all  Dr.  Fuller's  quotations  from  the  old 
heathen  Greeks  to  prove  that  baptizo  in  the  New 
Testament  "signifies  a  total  immersion  and  no- 
thing else."     If  it  did  originally  mean  to  dip,  it 


SCRIPTURAL   HINTS  CONCERNING    MODE.         189 

had  acquired  the  additional  sense  of  wash  and 
cleanse  long  before  the  Savior's  time.  Of  this  all 
the  lexicographers  are  witnesses.  The  Septuagint, 
which  was  written  more  than  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before  Christ,  uses  it  interchangeably 
with  louo,  which  means  to  wash,  without  reference 
to  mode.  And  so  it  is  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  this  one  fixed  and  uniform  sense  of  purifi- 
cation, without  limitation  as  to  manner.  We  chal- 
lenge all  the  Baptist  learning  in  the  world  to  pro- 
dace  from  the  New  Testament  one  single  instance 
in  which  its  signification  is  necessarily  limited  to 
immersion.  In  all  their  multiplied  books,  tracts, 
and  arguments  on  this  subject  Baptists  have  never 
produced  such  an  instance.  They  cannot  produce 
such  an  instance.  There  is  none  such  in  existence. 
With  characteristic  regard  for  fairness,  it  is  the 
constant  habit  of  Baptist  writers  to  treat  us  and 
our  position  as  if  we  held  that  baptizo  means  to 
sprinkle  or  pour.  Dr.  Fuller  ascribes  this  to  us  as 
our  doctrine  again  and  again.  We  deny  it,  and 
hurl  back  the  statement  as  unmanly  sophistry. 
We  maintain  no  such  thing.  This  would  be  limit- 
ing the  word  to  mode,  just  like  himself  We  do 
not  say  that  it  never  means  to  sprinkle.  Schreve- 
lius  and  Scapula  translate  it  by  lavo,  which  often 
has  the  sense  of  sprinkling ;  but  our  doctrine  is  that 
baptizo,  in  its  New  Testament  and  Christian  sense, 
means  to  purify,  toithout  limitation  as  to  mode.  We 
do  not  read.  In  those  days  came  John  the  sprinkler, 
or  John  the  pourer,  or  John  the  dipper,  but  John 
the  purifier;  not  I  indeed  pour  you  with  water  unto 
repentance,  nor  I  indeed  dip  you  with  water  unto 


190  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

repentance,  but  I  indeed  purify  you  with  water  j  not 
There  standeth  one  among  you  who  shall  sprinkle 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  dip  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  loith  fire,  but  one  who  shall  purify  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire ;  not  He  that 
believeth  and  is  sprinkled  or  dipped  shall  be  saved, 
but  He  that  believeth  and  ia purified  shall  be  saved; 
not  Ye  are  sprinkled  in  Christ's  death,  or  dipped  in 
Christ's  death,  but  purified  in  Chi'ist's  death;  not 
that  The  fathers  were  poured  unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud,  or  sprinkled  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  much 
less  dipped  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  but  purified 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;  not  Go  ye 
and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  pouring  them,  or 
PLUNGING  them,  but  purifying  them,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Only  let  our  position  be  fairly  stated,  and  the  Baptist 
theory  will  refute  itself  Dr.  Fuller  sees  this;  and 
hence  his  equivocation  and  sophistry. 

We  proceed  now  to  inquire  how  far  Dr.  Fuller's 
theory  that  the  plunging  of  the  subject  into  the 
element  is  requisite  to  valid  baptism  is  sustained 
by  those  incidental  expressions  given  by  the  Bible 
in  connection  with  this  point.  We  do  not  expect 
to  prove  that  the  Scriptures  anywhere  lay  down 
any  one  specific  mode  for  the  performance  of  this 
baptismal  purification,  any  more  than  to  find 
inspired  direction  as  to  any  one  specific  mode  of 
receiving  or  administering  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
Scriptures  nowhere  prescribe  specific  modes  for  the 
observance  of  either  of  these  two  great  Christian  sacra- 
ments. And  we  call  upon  Dr.  Fuller  and  all'  his 
teachers  to  produce  the  passage  which  will  confute 


SCRIPTURAL    HINTS   CONCERNINQ    MODE.         191 

this  Statement.  But  still  there  are  some  incidental 
expressions  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  mode,  to 
which  we  desire  to  direct  attention. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  what  is  said  about 
the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  the  mode 
of  action  by  which  this  baptism  is  effected.  John's 
testimony  concerning  Jesus  was,  "  He  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  Jesus 
himself  promised  his  disciples,  "I  send  the  promise 
of  my  Father  upon  you :  tarry  ye  in  the  city  until 
ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high.''  "Ye  shall 
bo  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
hence."  (Luke  xxiv.  49;  Actsi.  5.)  Here  was  a 
sacred  prophecy,  the  fulfillment  of  which  has  been 
recorded  by  the  pen  of  inspiration.  This  baptism 
was  to  occur  "not  many  days"  after  Christ's  as- 
cension. All  agree  that  it  took  place  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  There  was,  then,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  a  great  divine  baptism.  How  was  it  per- 
formed ?  The  attempts  of  Baptists  to  answer  this 
question  have  produced  some  rich  specimens  of  Bib- 
lical interpretation, — "precious  morsels,"  indeed. 
Dr.  Carson  says,  "The  discijiles  were  immersed 
into  the  Holy  Spirit :  they  were  literally  covered 
ivith  the  appearance  of  wind  and  fire, — completely 
covered  with  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit."  (P.  107.) 
Just  to  think  of  the  disciples  buried  in  the  appear- 
ance of  wind!  How  sensible  !  How  easy  of  com- 
prehension !  The  "  exiled  minister  of  the  Associate 
Eeformed  Church"  tells  us,  from  Ohio,  that  "they 
were  literally  immersed  in  significant  sound" !!  and 
that'"  the  word  ekcheo  [poured  oufj  is  used  to  denote 
the  superabundance,  and  not  to  express  the  manner"  ! 


192  THE    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

(Pp.  169,  170.)  "But,"  says  he,  "we  have  no 
desire  to  undermine  and  destroy  the  meaning  of 
ekcheo."  (P.  150.)  Oh,  no,  not  at  all!  He  only 
desired  to  put  it  out  of  the  way  for  this  once, — 
until  he  had  dipped  the  disciples  "in  significant 
sound"  ! !  Pengilly,  who  with  so  much  pretended 
meekness  undertakes  to  give  a  full  exhibit  of  "  the 
various  portions  of  Scripture  relating  to  baptism," 
never  alludes  to  this  divine  baptism  of  Pentecost. 
It  seems  to  have  been  too  tough  a  case  for  him  to 
undertake.  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  "  there  was  a  real 
immersion."  (P.  85.)  We  ask,  in  what?  He  says, 
"Jesus  compares  the  Spirit  to  wind;"  and  that  "on 
that  day  '  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven 
as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  whei'e  they  were  sitting.'  "  The  italicizing 
is  his  own ;  the  impression  which  ho  seeks  to  make 
is  plain.  The  disciples  were  immersed  in  wind! 
But  how  was  it  with  the  ''fire"  ?  John  said  that 
Christ  would  "■  baptize  with  fire ;"  and  this  was  the 
literal  fulfillment  of  it.  Were  the  disciples  im- 
mersed in  the  cloven  tongues  of  flame?  The  Bap- 
tist world  is  silent.  No  answer  has  been  attempted. 
There  stirs  not  even  "the  appearance  of  wind"! 
But  we  turn  to  the  inspired  accounts  of  the  trans- 
action ; — "And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was 
fully  come,  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven;  .  .  .  and  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them, 
and  they  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts 
ii.  1,  2.)  Peter  says  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends, 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the 
BEGINNING."  (Acts  X.  44.)     "God  .  .  .  gave  them 


SCRIPTURAL    HINTS   CONCERNING    MODE.         193 

the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  us."  John  says, 
"  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a 
dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him."  (John  i.  32.)  Peter 
Bays  of  the  baptism  of  Pentecost,  "This  is  that 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel,  ...  I  will 
POUR  OUT  my  Spirit.  .  .  .  Jesus,  having  received 
of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath 
SHED  FORTH  this  whicli  ye  now  see  and  hear." 
(Acts  ii.  16, 17,  33.)  "Peter  and  John  prayed  for 
the  people  of  Samaria,  that  they  might  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  for  as  yet  he  had  fallen  upon  none 
of  them."  (Acts  viii.  15,  16.)  "God  anointed 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts  x. 
38.)  "While  Peter  yet  spake,  the  Holy  Ghost 
FELL  ON  all  them  which  heard  the  word.  And 
they  of  the  circumcision  were  astonished,  .  .  . 
because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts  x.  44,  45.)  Paul 
speaks  of  "  the  Holy  Ghost  which  he  shed  on  us." 
(Tit.  iii.  6.)  Peter  speaks  of  the  fii-st  minister  as 
having  "  preached  the  gospel,  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
SENT  DOWN  from  heaven."  (1  Peter  i.  12.)  And  in 
Ephesians  i.  13  we  have  the  phrase  "sealed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit." 

Now,  we  are  very  gravely  reminded  that  this 
falling,  descending,  pouring  out  upon,  shedding  forth, 
falling  upon,  &c.  denotes  one  thing,  but  the  results 
thei-eof  another  thing.  We  are  told  that  it  was 
not  the  pouring  that  constituted  the  baptism,  but 
the  consequence  of  the  pouring.  Very  Avell :  if 
our  Baptist  friends  can  gain  any  thing  by  the  dis- 
tinction, we  have  no  great  objection  to  it.  But 
the  pouring  out  or  shedding  forth  unquestionably 


194  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

gives  THE  MODE  of  that  result.  It  gives  the  action 
of  the  case,  and  the  only  action  of  the  case.  We 
do  not  say  that  the  pouring  out  was  the  haptism ; 
but  we  do  say  that  it  was  the  mode  of  it,  and  that, 
so  far  as  mode  enters  into  this  baptism,  that  mode 
was  POURING  OUT  UPON.  There  it  is.  God's  own 
Spirit  says  it.  And  God's  own  Spirit  knows  how 
it  was  done.  Baptist  critics  tell  us  that  the  pour- 
ing was  Sk  figure;  but  of  what?  It  was  not  a  figure 
of  the  Spirit.  It  was  not  a  figure  of  any  quality 
of  the  Sj)irit.  If  a  figure  of  any  thing,  it  must  be 
a  figure  of  some  action.  It  must  figure  motion. 
And  that  motion  is  the  coming  down  of  the  bap- 
tizing element  from  above  upon  the  subject.  Make 
that  element  sound,  or  make  it  wind,  or  make  it 
the  appearance  of  wind,  or  make  it  fire  and  wind, 
it  is  all  the  same:  this  baptism  was  by  pouring 
upon,  by  shedding  forth :  the  mode  was  affusion. 

But  we  deny  that  there  was  any  "wind"  in  the 
case,  or  that  there  was  any  "appearance  of  wind." 
A  "sound"  there  was;  but  we  deny  that  the  sound 
was  the  Spirit.  It  was  only  the  indication  of  the 
Spirit's  approach.  The  sensible  form  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  assumed  on  this  occasion,  was  "cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of 
them,"  There  was  a  shower  of  flame-like  flakes 
alighting  upon  the  heads  of  the  favored  ones, 
symbolizing  the  light,  and  purifying  power,  and 
heavenly  inspirations  that  were  being  poured  upon 
their  waiting  souls.  And  this  was  the  baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whether  the  copiousness 
of  the  glorious  gift  was  of  a  degree  to  deluge  the 
subject  or  not,  it  was  by  descent  upon  him, — by 


SCRIPTURAL   HINTS   CONCERNING   MODE.        195 

applying  the  element  to  him,  and  not  by  thrusting 
him  into  the  element.  Admit  every  thing  that 
the  invention  of  immersionists  has  devised  to 
figure  out  immersion :  the  mode  still  remains  the 
same,  and  refuses  to  yield.  "The  Holy  Ghost 
FELL  ON  THEM."  The  Spirit  was  "poured  out." 
Indeed,  the  Baptist  annotator  Hackett  calls  it  an 
^'effusion,''  and  says,  "the  fire-like  appearance  pre- 
sented itself  at  first,  as  it  were,  in  a  single  body, 
and  then  suddenly  parted  in  this  direction  and 
that,  so  that  a  portion  of  it  rested  upon  each  of 
those  present."  (Acts  ii.  3.)  This  wholly  excludes 
all  idea  of  immersion. 

And  again:  if  haptizo  includes  mode,  and  that 
mode  is  immersion,  then  the  idea  of  immersion 
must  fit  and  harmonize  with  all  these  scriptural 
allusions  to  mode  in  connection  with  the  subject 
of  baptism.  That  it  does  not  thus  fit,  the  follow- 
ing ^aymTOenfum  crwm  will  show: — "This  is  that 
which  was  spoken :  .  .  .  I  will  immerse  out  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh."  "I  saw  the  Spirit  immersing  from 
heaven  like  a  dove."  "Jesus  hath  immersed  forth 
this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  "As  yet  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  immersed  upon  none  of  them." 
"On  the  Gentiles  also  was  immersed  out  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  "The  Holy  Ghost,  which  he 
immersed  on  us."  "The  Holy  Ghost  immersed 
down  from  heaven !"  How  ridiculous  and  shock- 
ing would  be  such  readings!  And  the  whole 
ground  of  the  difficulty  thus  exhibited  lies  in  this : 
that  the  Scriptures  contemplate  the  application  of 
the  baptismal  element  to  the  subject,  and  frame 
their  language  accordinglj^;  but  Dr.  Fuller's  theory 


196  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

contemplates  the  application  of  the  subject  to  the  eh' 
ment.  And  the  language  which  describes  the  one 
operation  cannot  possibly  be  construed  with  that 
which  describes  the  other. 

So  far,  then,  as  concerns  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  the  doctrine  that  the  subject  must  be 
plunged  into  the  baptismal  element  in  order  to  be 
baptized  is  not  only  without  scriptural  foundation, 
but  in  absolute  contradiction  to  every  word  which 
the  Sjiirit  of  God  itself  has  employed  to  describe 
the  mode  of  one  of  its  own  operations.  The 
whole  description  implies  and  relates  to  affusion. 
There  is  not  one  single  expression  that  will  tole- 
rate the  idea  of  immersion. 

And  if  the  idea  of  affusion  is  thus  divinely 
appropriated  as  descriptive  of  the  baptism  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  what  is  more  natural  than  to  infer 
that  the  same  mode  holds  good  and  is  agi'ceable  to 
the  divine  mind  with  regard  to  the  baptism  by 
water?  There  is  necessarily  a  close  resemblance 
between  them.  In  many  passages  the  same  ex- 
pressions are  applied  to  both.  The  record  of 
water-baptism  presents  exactly  the  same  construc- 
tion as  the  record  of  the  baptism  by  the  Spirit. 
Indeed,  one  is  the  type  of  the  other.  And,  in  the 
absence  of  direct  proof  to  the  contrary,  are  we  not 
bound  to  believe  that  the  mode  in  one  is  corres- 
pondent with  the  mode  in  the  other?  When 
Peter  saw  the  Iloly  Gho'^t  falling  on  Cornelius  and 
bis  friends,  his  mind  instantly  recurred  to  the  bap- 
tism of  John.  "Then  remembered  I,  .  .  .  John 
indeed  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized   with    the    Holy   Ghost."      What    laws   of 


SCRIPTURAL   HINTS   CONCERNING    MODE.         197 

mental  association  could  thus  carry  him  back 
from  the  contemplation  of  the  affusion  of  the 
Spirit  to  a  water-baptism,  unless  that  water-bap- 
tism was  performed  by  a  similar  affusion? 

We  look  next  at  the  baptism  of  Christ  spoken 
of  in  Luke  xiii.  50,  Mark  x.  38,  Matt.  xx.  22,  23. 
This  is  uniformly  understood  by  Origen,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Augustine,  and  all  the  Fathers,  as  a 
baptism  of  blood.  But  the  Savior  never  was 
totally  immersed  in  blood.  In  the  garden  he  was 
only  bedewed  with  drops  oozing  from  his  pores. 
On  the  cross  he  was  merely  stained  with  what 
trickled  from  his  pierced  hands,  feet,  and  temples, 
and  flowed  from  his  wounded  side.  If  Ave  under- 
stand it  of  the  wrath  of  God  which  he  endured 
for  sinners,  that  wrath  is  always  spoken  of  as 
poured  out:  Ps.  Ixix.  24,  Ixxix.  6;  Jer.  x.  25;  Ezek. 
vii.  8,  xxi.  31;  2  Chron.  xii.  7;  Isa.  xlii.  25;  Jer. 
vii.  20;  Lam.  ii.  4;  Ezek.  xx.  33.  If  we  under- 
stand it  of  the  stripes  and  iniquities  which  ho 
bore  for  the  world's  salvation,  these  things  are 
everywhere  spoken  of  as  laid  on  him:  Isa.  liii.  4, 
6,  8;  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  And  it  would  be  doing  violence 
to  the  ordinary  construction  of  language  to  read 
the  Savior's  words  as  if  he  had  said,  "Are  ye  able 
to  be  immersed  with  the  immersion  I  am  immersed 
with?"  "1  have  an  immersion  to  be  immersed 
WITH."  "Can  ye  be  immersed  with  the  immer- 
sion I  am  immersed  with?"  How  much  more  natu- 
ral and  consistent  to  understand  the  question, 
"Can  ye  endure  to  have  laid  or  poured  ujyon  you 
what  I  have  laid  upon  me?"  So  that  in  regard  to 
this  baptism,  as  in  regard  to  the  baptism  by  the 
17* 


198  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Spirit,  the  entire  phraseology  of  the  Bible  con- 
templates the  application  of  the  element  to  the 
subject  in  a  way  answering  to  affusion,  and  to 
affusion  alone. 

We  look  next  at  the  relation  of  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  baptism  to  the  old  economy,  to  see  what 
light  can  be  gathered  as  to  the  mode  of  its  admin- 
istration. Whatever  Dr.  Fuller  may  say  to  the 
contrary,  the  New  Testament  is  the  development 
of  the  Old  Testament, — the  flower  of  which  that 
was  the  stem,  the  harvest  of  which  that  was  the 
seed-time,  the  full-grown  man  of  which  that  was 
the  swaddling  infant.  All  great  and  sound  theo- 
logians, from  Paul  to  the  present  moment,  have 
uniformly  so  regarded  it.  Jesus,  the  great  theme 
and  substance  of  the  New  Testament,  is  the  same 
of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  did 
write.  And  there  is  not  one  marked  particular  in 
all  the  gospel  that  had  not  its  dim  beginning  in 
the  Old  Testament.  If  we  take  Faith,  Abraham 
was  the  very  father  of  the  faithful,  and  its  most 
illustrious  examples  are  found  in  the  olden  time: 
Eom.  iv.  11,  16;  Heb.  xi.  If  we  take  the  Atone- 
menty  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  sin, 
was  in  the  old  sacrifices  "slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world:"  Eev.  xiii.  8;  Luke  xxiv.  25,  27. 
If  we  take  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  was  but  an  extri- 
cation of  the  ancient  Passover  from  its  typical 
connections  with  the  old  covenant,  and  its  con- 
tinuance under  forms  adapted  to  the  transition 
which  has  long  since  been  eff'ected  from  prophecy 
to  history :  1  Cor.  v.  7.  And  so  we  are  driven  to 
infer  that  Baptism  is  also  in  some  way  developed 


SCRIPTURAL    HINTS    CONCi.RNlNO    MODE.  199 

from  germs  which  were  planted  in  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation. Alexander  Campbell  says,  "No  person 
ever  has  understood — indeed,  no  person  can  fully 
understand — the  Christian  institution,  without  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
as  well  as  of  the  five  historical  books  of  the  New 
Testament."  (Debate  with  Eice,  j).  161.) 

As  there  was  a  Mosaic  atonement  and  a  Mosaic 
supper,  so  there  were  also  Mosaic  baptisms.  Paul, 
in  summing  up  the  various  services  of  the  Levitical 
economy,  says  that  they  consisted  of  "meats, 
and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms."  (Heb.  ix.  10.) 
What  these  various  baptisms  were,  and  how  they 
were  performed,  we  have  already  shown.  But 
Paul  speaks  particularly  of  some  of  them,  and 
gives  the  mode  of  their  administration.  He  tells 
us  of  baptisms  by  "  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats, 
and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean," 
which  "sanctified  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh."  (Heb. 
ix.  13.)  He  tells  us  also  of  baptisms  by  "the 
blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  water  and  scarlet  wool, 
and  hyssop  sprinkled  upon  both  the  book  and  all 
THE  PEOPLE."  (Heb.  ix.  19.)  And  it  is  a  fact  that 
all  the  Old  Testament  ablutions,  the  mode  of 
which  was  prescribed,  without  a  single  exception, 
were  required  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling. 
"  There  is  not  a  washing  of  the  Levitical  law 
having  respect  to  persons,  nor  an  important  wash- 
ing of  any  kind,  the  mode  of  which,  if  there  is 
any  mode  commanded,  is  not  sprinkling."  (De- 
bate, p.  206.) 

Now,  these  ancient  baptisms,  along  with  all  the 
other  particulars  of  the  ceremonial  law,  the  apostle 


200  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

designates  as  "signs/'  "shadows/'  ^' patterfis," 
"  FIGURES /or  the  times  then  present."  (Heb.  ix.  9,  23, 
24.)  In  these  typical  baptisms  the  mode  is  speci- 
fically given.  That  mode  is  the  sprinkling  of  the 
baptismal  element  upon  the  subject.  If  the  pat- 
terns, therefore,  were  true,  (and,  when  we  consider 
that  God  himself  made  them,  wo  are  bound  to 
conclude  that  they  were  true,)  it  follows  that,  in 
the  administration  of  that  higher  and  holier  bap- 
tism which  these  ancient  services  prefigured, 
sprinkling  is  an  appropriate  mode,  bearing  upon  it 
the  express  sanction  of  God  himself  Indeed,  when 
the  ancient  prophet  came  to  speak  of  the  greater 
simplicity  and  power  of  the  ordinances  which 
Messiah  should  appoint,  these  Mosaic  baptisms 
at  once  rose  before  his  mind.  The  relation  which 
they  bore  to  what  was  to  follow  he  distinctly 
foresaw.  He  notes  the  change  which  was  to  be 
made  in  the  element, —  from  blood  and  water 
mingled  with  ashes  to  something  more  directly 
symbolic  of  spiritual  purity;  but  no  alteration  in 
the  manner  or  mode  of  its  use.  And  in  the  name 
of  Him  who  was  to  come  he  announced  to  the 
children  of  promise,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
WATER  UPON  YOU,  and  ye  shall  he  clean."  (Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25.)  We  have  already  remarked  that  the 
Fathers  interpreted  this,  as  well  as  Ps.  li.  7,  Isa. 
i.  16,  iv.  4,  Mai.  iii.  3,  as  predictions  concerning 
the  ordinance  of  the  Christian  baptism. 

Again,  as  remarked  by  Professor  Wilson: — "In 
reading  the  New  Testament,  we  are  impressed 
with  the  perfect  facility  of  administering  baptism 
in  all  variety  of  circumstances.     When  residents 


SCRIPTURAL   HINTS   CONCERNING   MODE.  201 

in  Jerusalem  believe,  they  are  instantly  baptized. 
When  inhabitants  of  Samaria  turn  to  the  Lord, 
they  are  at  once  received  into  Christian  fellow- 
ship by  the  same  sacred  rite.  As  the  apostles  go 
from  house  to  house  and  travel  from  city  to  city, 
wherever  there  are  converts,  baptism  is  admin- 
istered promptly  and  without  any  apparent  in- 
convenience. To  the  universality  of  this  state- 
ment, so  far  as  we  are  aware,  there  exists  no 
exception.  Let  the  character  and  bearing  of  this 
general  fact  be  candidly  estimated.  Will  truth 
permit  the  assumption  that  the  cities  and  houses 
within  the  range  of  apostolic  labor  were  more 
copiously  supplied  with  water  than  cities  and 
houses  among  ourselves  at  the  present  day?  If, 
then,  the  matter  were  put  to  the  test  of  experi- 
ment;  would  not  the  administration  of  baptism  by 
dipping,  in  numerous  places  and  houses,  be  at- 
tended with  difficulties  almost  insuperable  ?  Would 
it  not  in  many  instances  be  impracticable  to  im- 
merse a  convert  instantly  and  on  the  spot?"  The 
author  of  this  book  knows  of  an  instance  in  West- 
ern Maryland  in  which  three  converts  to  immer- 
sionism  were  required  to  wait  four  or  five  months 
before  the  region  could  furnish  accommodations 
for  them  to  be  dipped.  "  Yet,  in  New  Testament 
baptisms,  the  administration,  in  every  variety  of 
circumstance,  wears  the  appearance  of  the  most 
perfect  ease  and  convenience.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered, too,  that  during  this  early  age  there  were 
no  houses  of  worship,  no  baptisteries,  and,  in  a 
word,  no  ecclesiastical  facilities  for  immersion." 
(Inf  Bapt.  pp.  258,  259.) 


20;i  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

And,  in  addition  to  all  this,  the  very  signification 
of  the  word  baptism,  and  of  the  sacrament  of  which 
it  is  the  name,  lays  the  foundation  for  an  infer- 
ence that  plunging  is  not  a  becoming  mode  for 
the  administration  of  this  rite.  We  have  seen  that 
it  is  unifonnly  emj)loyed  by  the  Scriptures  to 
denote  purification.  The  whole  meaning  of  the 
ordinance  itself  points  to  an  inward  cleansing 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  Immersion 
is  not  a  symbol  of  purity.  Its  leading  import  is 
destruction.  The  sinking  of  a  man  alwaj^^s  signi- 
fies degradation.  The  Hebrew  word  for  immerse 
is  expressly  used  in  Job  ix.  31  to  denote  the  very 
opposite  of  purity.  But  the  application  of  clean 
water  to  the  subject  is  one  of  the  liveliest  images 
of  purification  that  can  be  presented  to  the  human 
mind.  The  Scriptures  have  again  and  again  re- 
ferred to  it  in  this  very  connection.  Sprinkling  and 
pouring  water  upon  one  is  an  ever-recurring  image 
of  moral  cleansiug.  What  does  God  say  in  Ezekiel 
xxxvi.  25  ? — "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness 
and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you."  We 
may  say  that  the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  water 
upon  a  subject  is  God's  own  chosen  image  of 
spiritual  purification.  ^ 

With  all  these  facts  before  us,  how  can  it  be 
possible  for  any  unpi-ejudiced  man  to  doubt 
whether  affusion  is  a  proper  and  divinely  author- 
ized mode  of  administering  the  holy  sacrament  of 
Christian  baptism?  Who  can  look  at  them  and 
in  his  heart  believe  that  where  there  is  no  immer- 
sion there  is  no  baptism,  and  that  the  great  com- 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      203 

pany  of  Christ's  disciples  are  apostate  from  their 
Lord  because  they  have  not  submitted  to  sectarian 
dictation  as  to  the  necessity  of  being  plunged 
under  the  water? 


CHAPTER  XV. 

BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING   MODE. 

What  has  now  been  elicited  from  the  Scrip- 
tures respecting  the  mode  of  baptism  must  of 
itself  be  conclusive  in  favor  of  affusion,  unless  the 
most  positive  and  commanding  reasons  to  the  con- 
trary are  produced.  Let  us  see,  then,  what  Bap- 
tists have  said  upon  this  point : — 

Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  My  first  argument  is  founded 
upon  the  force  of  the  verb  baptizo."  But  this  is  a 
mere  begging  of  the  question.  The  force  of  the 
word  baptizo  is  the  object  of  inquiry'-  and  the  sub- 
ject of  dispute.  And  for  Dr.  Fuller  to  argue  that 
the  New  Testament  baptisms  were  immersions 
because  the  word  means  immerse,  and  then  to 
conclude  that  the  word  means  immerse  because 
the  baptisms  respecting  which  it  is  used  were 
immersions,  is  about  as  ridiculous  a  specimen  of 
reasoning  in  a  circle  as  could  well  be  found.  It 
speaks  badly  for  a  grave  doctor  of  divinity,  and 
still  worse  for  the  merits  of  his  cause.  We  cer- 
tainly have  proven  beyond  confutation  that  the 
word   baptizo,   in   Christian  language,   denotes  a 


204  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

religious  purifying,  without  limitation  as  to  mode; 
that  it  is  applied  to  religious  cleansings  effected 
in  everj^  variety  of  manner;  and  that  there  are 
instances  abundant  in  which  it  can  by  no  possi- 
bility mean  immersion.  We  have  also  proven 
that  the  intimations  as  to  mode  in  the  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  bloody  baptism  of 
Christ,  and  in  the  typical  baptisms  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  all  favor  affusion,  and  for  the  most  part 
exclude  immersion  altogether.  And  for  Dr.  Fuller 
to  argue  that  the  New  Testament  baptisms  were 
immersions  because  the  woi"d  means  immerse, 
when  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  the  point  of 
inquiry,  is  ridiculous  and  absurd. 

"My  second  argument,"  says  he,  "is  drawn 
from  the  places  chosen  for  baptism."  That  is  to  say, 
the  places  at  which  the  baptisms  of  the  New 
Testament  were  performed  prove  that  they  were 
immersions.     Well,  let  us  see  how  this  is. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  baptisms  recorded 
in  the  Bible  was  the  baptism  of  the  three  thou- 
sand on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  This  was  performed 
in  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  Would  Dr.  Fuller  have  us 
believe  that  the  city  of  Jerusalem  was  a  lake,  a 
river,  "  a  great  conflux  of  water,"  a  general 
bathing-place  for  the  nations  of  the  earth?  Jeru- 
salem was  a  mountain-city,  wnth  no  living  stream 
or  natural  sheet  of  standing  water  sufficient  to 
immerse  a  man  within  fifteen  miles  of  its  location. 
We  even  have  Baptist  authority  for  this.  And 
yet  the  places  at  which  the  New  Testament  bap- 
tisms were  performed  are  to  prove  to  us  that  they 
were  immersions ! 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      205 

But  Dr.  Fuller  talks  learnedly  of  cisterns,  pools, 
and  reservoirs,  and  gravely  tells  us  that  there  were 
several  such  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem. 
He  mentions  Bethesda.  But  Wilde  describes  this  as 
"an  immense,  deep,  oblong  excavation."  Eobinson 
says  it  is  seventy-five  feet  deep.  How  could  three 
thousand  be  immersed  in  such  a  place  in  one  day  ? 
Mr.  Ewing  thinks  it  doubtful  whether  it  was 
possible  for  more  than  one  or  two  persons  to 
descend  into  this  pool  at  a  time ;  and  Mr.  Carson 
himself  concedes,  "If  my  cause  obliged  me  to 
prove  that  it  admitted  two,  1  grant  that  1 
could  not  prove  it."  What  is  said  of  it  in  John 
V.  1-4  can  give  us  but  little  that  is  reliable,  inas- 
much as  all  critics  consider  that  passage  exceed- 
ingly obscured  and  doubtful  by  spurious  and 
questionable  readings.  Bethesda  was  certainly  a 
receptacle  for  filth,  surrounded  by  porches  where 
sheep  were  washed,  and  receiving  all  the  drainage 
of  blood  and  offal  from  the  temple.  Hammond, 
Michaelis,  Kuinol,  and  others  attribute  its  medici- 
nal properties  to  the  warm  blood  and  animal 
deposits  which  came  into  it  in  various  ways  from 
the  sacrifices.  And  when  we  consider  that  the 
persons  baptized  were  Jews,  purified  to  attend  the 
Pentecostal  festival,  and  subject  to  a  penalty  of 
seven  days'  defilement  and  exclusion  if  they  should 
but  touch  any  lifeless  animal  matter,  it  is  simply 
preposterous  to  suppose  for  one  moment  that  the 
three  thousand,  or  any  portion  of  them,  were 
plunged  in  such  a  jiit  of  filth  in  order  to  be  puri- 
fied  into  Jesus  Christ. 

Besides  Bethesda  there  was  but  one  other  open 
18 


206  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

pool,  SO  far  as  we  know,  icithin  the  walls  of  Jerusa- 
lem,— the  fish-pool  by  the  fish-market.  This  evi- 
dently was  also  a  sort  of  drain  for  the  water  and 
filth  which  would  constantly  be  accumulating 
where  fish  for  the  entire  city  were  handled  and 
sold.  There  is  not  one  word  of  testimony  that  it 
ever  was  a  bathing-place.  Outside  of  the  citj-, 
and  supplied  with  a  feeble,  irregular  stream  from 
under  the  wall,  was  the  pool  of  Si  loam,  described 
by  Lynch  as  "  a  deep,  oblong  pit."  Its  depth  was 
at  least  nineteen  feet.  It  was  a  place  about  as 
much  adapted  to  immerse  in  as  our  ordinary 
cisterns  and  wells.  As  to  the  upper  and  lower 
pools  of  Gihon  and  the  pool  of  Hezekiah,  all  of 
which  were  some  distance  from  the  city,  it  is  the 
uniform  testimony  of  travelers  that  they  are  ever 
dry  except  in  seasons  of  rain.  The  celebrated 
pools  of  Solomon,  which  supplied  water  to  the 
citizens  of  Jerusalem,  were  about  twelve  miles 
from  the  city. 

The  statement  of  D'Arvieux  is  worth  considering 
in  this  connection.  Of  most  of  the  houses  in  Jeru- 
salem he  says,  ''They  are  only  one  story  raised  above 
the  ground-floor.  Their  roofs  are  of  stone,  and  are 
formed  into  terraces :  they  contain  cisterns  to  pre- 
serve the  rain-water  which  is  collected  on  the  ter- 
races,— an  attention  absolutely  necessary  in  this 
city,  which  includes  neither  wells,  fountains,  nor 
streams."  An  officer  who  accompanied  Sydney 
Smith  during  the  war  says,  "At  Jerusalem,  rain  had 
not  fallen  during  nine  months."  And,  what  is  very 
unfortunate  for  the  Baptist  theory,  the  account  of 
the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  says  not  a  word 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING   MODE.      207 

about  cisterns,  pools,  reservoirs,  baptisteries,  or 
any  thing  of  the  sort:  no,  nor  one  word  from 
which  to  infer  that  the  awakened  multitudes  ever 
removed  from  the  spot  on  which  they  received 
their  convictions  until  after  their  baptism  had 
been  performed. 

Our  Baptist  friends  have  fallen  into  a  curious 
way  of  arguing  in  this  connection.  They  insist 
that  the  only  reason  why  John  took  '*all  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem"  out  to  the  Jordan  and 
to  Enon  was  that  he  might  have  an  adequate 
supply  of  water  in  which  to  immerse  them.  Now, 
if  this  was  the  reason  why  he  took  them  to  the 
river  and  to  Enon,  it  must  argue  as  strongly  for 
the  NON-imraersion  of  the  three  thousand  as  for 
the  immersion  of  John's  converts.  If  he  had  to 
take  his  disciples  out  to  Enon  and  the  Jordan  to 
find  conveniences  for  immersing  them,  it  proves 
that  there  were  no  such  conveniences  about 
Jerusalem.  Either,  then,  they  must  give  up  the 
point  which  they  claim, —  that  John  selected 
Enon's  many  waters  for  the  sake  of  facilities 
for  immersion, — or  they  must  admit  that  Jerusa- 
lem did  not  furnish  such  facilities.  They  may  take 
which  side  of  the  dilemma  they  choose,  and  it 
makes  sad  inroads  upon  their  theory  that  all  bap- 
tisms are  immersions. 

Seeing,  however,  that  his  cause  is  so  hopeless  in 
connection  with  the  pools,  our  author  directs  atten- 
tion to  the  little  brook  Kedron,  as  furnishing 
"  abundant  water."  But,  unfortunately  again,  nine 
months  in  the  year  Kedron  is  dry!  So  says  Vol- 
taire.    So  says  Kitto  in  his  Natural  History  of 


208  TUE    BArTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Palestine.  When  Spencer  visited  it  it  was  dry. 
All  the  time  Maundrell  staj'^ed  at  Jerusalem  there 
was  not  a  drop  of  water  in  it.  So  it  was  when 
Wilde  saw  it.  So  also  when  Stevens  saw  it. 
Indeed,  Mr.  Samson  himself,  a  Baptist  whose 
wonderful  personal  observations  about  Jerusalem 
are  greatly  relied  on  by  the  Lewisburg  Professor 
and  the  editor  of  "The  True  Union,"  remarks 
that  "  the  brook  Kedron,  as  the  original  term  indi- 
cates, is  nothing  hut  the  bed  through  which  the 
rains  of  winter  drain  off  between  the  eastern  wall 
of  the  city  and  Mount  Olivet;  and  its  channel  is 
therefore  dry  in  early  spring,  several  weeks  before 
THE  PERIOD  in  the  month  of  June  when  the  Feast 
OF  Pentecost  occurred."  (Baptismal  Tracts  for 
the  Times,  p.  16.)  Wells,  in  his  Geography,  or 
his  editor,  says,  "  This  brook  answered  the  pur- 
pose of  a  drain  to  the  lands  around  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  after  rains,  and  possibly  might  answer 
the  same  purj^ose  to  some  of  the  suburbs  of  the 
city  and  receive  their  underground  discharges. 
Hence,  perhaps,  its  name,  black."  A  gentleman 
English  traveller  says,  "I  cannot  recollect  to  have 
seen  any  stream  or  pool  near  Jerusalem  siifficiei\t 
to  allow  the  immersion  of  an  adult  person.  The 
brook  Kedron  was  so  nearly  dried  up,  that  I  do 
not  believe  a  boy  or  girl  could  in  an}'^  point  of  its 
channel,  near  Jerusalem,  have  found  depth  enough 
for  immersion.  I  believe  I  saw  no  water  between 
Jaffa  and  Jerusalem  [thirty-eight  miles]  in  which 
a  man  or  woman  could  have  been  immersed." 
And  Ewing  remarks,  "  I  cannot  help  mentioning 
that  in  no  history,  sacred  or  profane,  have  1  read 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      209 

of  any  persons  swimming  in  or  near  the  city  of 
Jerusalem.  Many  calamitous  deaths  have  at  dif- 
ferent times  befallen  its  inhabitants:  among  all 
these,  do  we  ever  meet  with  an  instance  of  drown- 
ing in  that  place  or  neighborhood?  Herod  the 
Gi'eat,  indeed,  who  was  reigning  in  Jerusalem  at 
the  time  of  our  Savior's  birth,  caused  his  son 
Aristobulus  to  be  drowned;  but  we  are  told  that 
for  that  purpose  he  sent  him  to  Jericho."  (See 
Josephus,  Antiq.  liber  i.  cap.  22.)  So  that  the 
resort  to  Kedron  is  even  more  desperate  than 
to  the  pools. 

Dr.  Fuller  sees  that  it  will  not  answer  for  him 
to  leave  matters  in  such  an  unfavorable  aspect. 
He  must  needs  give  them  a  better  gloss,  though 
he  should  have  to  resort  to  his  old  expedient  of 
altering  the  sense  of  the  record  itself.  On  page 
77  he  solemnly  declares  that  "  it  is  nowhere  said 
[of  the  three  thousand']  that  they  were  baptized  in  one 
day."  Let  the  reader,  then,  take  his  Bible  and 
examine  the  second  chapter  of  Acts.  A  solemn 
scene  is  there  spread  before  us.  Peter,  just 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  stands  forth  as  the 
preacher  of  Jesus  to  listening  thousands.  His 
hearers  melt  under  his  burning  words  and  call 
out  to  know  what  they  must  do.  "Peter  said 
unto  them,  Eepent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of 
you."  "  Then" — not  in  the  course  of  a  few  days, 
as  they  could  find  places  to  immerse  in,  but 
"then"  (rnen  oun) — in  the  course  of  the  trans- 
action then  present,  in  immediate  continuance 
of  what  went  before — "  Then  they  that  gladly  re- 
ceived his  word  were  baptized;  and  the  same  day 

18* 


210  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

thd'e  were  added  to  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 
Of  course,  none  were  added  to  the  disciples  but 
those  who  gladly  received  Peter's  word;  and 
baptism  was  the  divinely  appointed  method  by 
means  of  which  men  were  to  be  added  to  the  list 
of  Christ's  acknowledged  disciples.  And  yet  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  "  then"  bap- 
tized, "  AND  THE  SAME  DAY  there  Were  added  to 
them  about  three  thousand  souls."  If  this  does 
not  mean  that  they  were  all  baptized  in  one  day, 
it  is  useless  to  rely  upon  language  as  a  means  of 
communication. 

So  far,  then,  from  proving  that  the  baptism  of 
the  three  thousand  was  performed  by  immersion, 
the  place  and  circumstances  lead  us  inevitably  to 
conclude  that  it  was  done  in  some  much  more 
convenient  and  summary  manner.  The  whole 
occurrence  was  sudden,  unexpected,  and  without 
previous  forethought  or  preparation  for  the  exi- 
gencies which  must  have  arisen  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  subjects  were  all  to  be  immersed. 
There  was  no  water  in  or  about  Jerusalem  for  the 
immediate  immersion  of  such  multitudes.  There 
were  but  eleven  or  twelve  present  who  had  re- 
ceived the  ministerial  commission  to  baptize  and 
that  were  competent  administrators  of  this  sacra- 
ment. It  must  have  been  late  in  the  day  when 
the  baptizing  commenced.  Peter  began  his  dis- 
course about  nine  o'clock,  (Acts  ii.  15.)  It  was 
of  long  continuance,  consisting  of  "many  other 
words"  more  than  are  on  record,  (ii.  40;)  and  the 
confusion  incident  upon  conducting  such  a  multi- 
tude to  a  place  fit  for  immersion  must  have  con- 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING   MODE.      211 

sumed  much  time  and  greatly  hindered  the  speedy 
execution  of  the  work.  So  that,  though  Dr.  Fuller 
may  make  himself  merry  over  Dr.  Kurtz's  arith- 
metical process,  he  must  remember  that  "figures 
do  not  lie,"  and  that  it  is  mathematically  demon- 
strable that  no  twelve  men  under  heaven  could 
have  immersed  three  thousand  in  the  limited  time 
and  amid  the  embarrassing  circumstances  in  which 
that  baptism  certainly  was  performed.  And,  if 
the  thing  was  so  plain  and  easy  as  he  pretends, 
if  he  is  not  himself  overcome  by  the  numerous 
impossibilities  which  hamper  and  cripple  the  im- 
mersion theory,  we  ask  him  why  he  is  so  anxious 
to  make  it  appear,  even  at  the  expense  of  pervert- 
ing the  record,  that  the  three  thousand  were  not 
baptized  in  one  day.  "Why  take  to  a  resort  so 
extreme,  unless  conscious  that  his  cause  is  lost 
without  it? 

Yet  Dr.  Fuller  would  have  his  readers  believe 
"there  would  have  been  no  sort  of  difficulty  in 
baptizing  [immersing]  more  than  three  thousand  in 
a  part  of  a  day."  And  he  quotes  what  he  calls 
"facts"  as  "the  shortest  argument  to  prove  it." 
He  says  that  Chrysostom  "did  immerse  about 
three  thousand  on  the  16th  of  April,  404,  though 
twice  interrupted" !  that  Bishop  Eemigus  "  im- 
mersed Clovis  and  three  thousand  of  his  subjects, 
aided  by  his  presbyters," — but  whether  in  one  day 
or  not  is  not  stated ;  that  he  himself  has  immersed 
"  between  one  and  two  hundred"  in  "  a  very  short 
time."  So  Booth  says,  "  Mr.  John  Fox  informs  us 
that  Austin  the  monk  baptized  and  christened  ten 
thousand  Saxons,  or  Angles,  in  the  west  river,  be- 


212  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

side  York,  on  a  Christmas  day!"  that  "a  single 
clergyman  baptized  in  one  day  above  five  thousand 
Mexicans,  and  did  not  desist  till  he  was  so  ex- 
hausted by  fatigue  that  he  was  unable  to  lift  up 
his  hands"!  and  that  Francis  Xavier  "baptized 
fifteen  thousand  in  one  day" !  Alas  that  the  race 
of  giants  is  extinct!  Such  instances  of  endurance 
are  not  heard  of  nowadays.  The  author  of 
"Scripture  Directory  for  Baptism"  says,  ''A 
gentleman  of  veracity  told  the  writer  that  he  was 
once  present  when  forty-seven  men  were  dipped  in 
one  day  in  the  usual  way.  The  first  operator  began 
and  went  through  the  ceremony  until  he  had 
dipped  twenty-five  persons,  when  he  was  so  fatigued 
that  he  was  compelled  to  give  it  up  to  the  other, 
who,  with  great  apparent  difficulty,  dipped  the 
other  twenty-two.  Both  appeared  completely 
EXHAUSTED."  And,  if  the  dipping  of  twenty  was 
hard  work  for  one  day  for  one  man,  how  could  a 
man  go  through  with  two  hundred  and  seventy, 
■which  would  have  been  about  the  proportion  fall- 
ing to  each  apostle  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ?  Sup- 
posing that  water  and  all  the  conveniences  for 
immersion  were  at  hand,  could  the  dipping  of  so 
many  have  been  performed  by  one  man  in  so  short 
a  time  ?  Well  has  Dr.  Miller  said,  ''  To  imagine 
this  would  be  among  the  most  imj)robable,  not  to 
say  extravagant,  imaginations  that  could  be  formed 
on  such  a  subject."  The  stories  to  which  our 
Baptist  friends  refer  on  this  point,  taken  as  they 
give  them,  are  simply  ridiculous  and  incredible. 
Professor  Wilson  justly  says,  "  The  man  who  re- 
ceives them  will  require  no  preparation  for  swal- 


BAPTIST  ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING   MODE.      213 

lowing  the  absurd  miracles  performed  by  all  the 
saints  in  the  Eomish  calendar."  He  has  been 
turned  aside  unto  fables,  given  over  to  believe 
a  lie. 

Look  next  at  the  case  of  the  jailer  and  his  family, 
(Acts  xvi.)  They  were  baptized  in  a  prison  at  Phi- 
lippi.  Dr.  Fuller  tells  us  that  Philippi  was  a  place 
of  springs.  Perhaps  he  may  yet  discover  that  it 
was  a  place  of  reservoirs  and  pools!  But  the 
question  is,  were  these  "confluxes  of  water"  in  the 
jail,  where  the  baptism  occurred,  and  was  the  jail 
such  a  place  as  to  beget  the  belief  that  said  baptism 
was  performed  by  immersion?  He  gives  it  as  his 
opinion,  notwithstanding  the  springs,  that  Paul 
took  the  jailer  and  his  family  out  at  midnight  to 
some  river !  He  seems  to  forget  Paul's  exhaustion 
from  stripes,  chains,  fasting,  vigils,  and  prayers, 
and  that  Paul  peremptorily  refused  to  leave  the 
prison  until  he  was  publicly  taken  out  by  the 
authorities  that  thrust  him  in,  (v.  37,)  and  that 
the  account  says  the  baptism  took  place  during 
the  exciting  scenes  of  the  night, — parachrema,  on 
THE  spot.  "  Indeed,"  says  Dr.  Clarke,  "  all  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  the  dead  of  the  night, 
the  general  agitation,  the  necessity  of  despatch, 
and  the  words  of  the  text,  all  disprove  that  there 
was  any  immersion." 

"1  by  no  means  think  it  incredible,"  says  Ewing, 
"that  there  should  have  been  a  bath  in  the  jailer's 
house  at  Philippi ;  but  there  is  not  a  hint  in  all  the 
Bible  about  the  use  of  a  bath  for  the  purpose  of 
baptizing,  more  than  about  the  use  of  a  basin. 
Water  was  brought  (I  know  not  in  what  vessel)  to 


21-i  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

wash  their  stripes,  and  water  was  brought  to  bap- 
tize the  family.  Every  house-baptism  supposes 
water  to  be  brought  and  the  baptized  to  receive 
the  aifusion  on  his  face  fi"om  the  hand  of  the  bap- 
tizer.  The  argument  that  'there  was  a  bath  in 
the  jail  at  Philippi,  because  there  is  a  very  fine  tank 
in  the  jail  at  Calcutta,  and  always  is  one  to  be 
found  in  an  Eastern  jail,'  maybe  illusti'ated  in  this 
manner: — There  was  a  stove  in  the  jail  at  Philippi, 
because  there  is  a  very  fine  one  in  the  jail  at  St. 
Petersburg,  and  always  is  one  to  be  found  in  a 
Northern  jail."  (P.  172.) 

Look  at  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  This 
was  performed m  the  sick-chamber:  at  least,  so  the 
Evangelist  leaves  us  to  infer.  For  three  days  this 
smitten  persecutor  lay,  a  blind,  exhausted,  and 
helpless  invalid,  upon  his  bed.  By  direction  of  God, 
Ananias  came  to  him  and  stated  to  him  his  mission, 
and  touched  him,  and  he  arose  from  his  couch  and 
was  baptized,  and  meat  was  given  him,  and  he  was 
strengthened :  Acts  xix.  1-19.  What  room  is  here 
to  infer  immersion  ? 

Our  Baptist  friends  have  shown  some  fine  powers 
of  imagination  in  connection  with  this  case  to  fill 
out  what  the  Holy  Ghost  has  lacked,  in  making 
things  harmonize  with  the  immersion  theory.  The 
good  Father  Taylor  breaks  out,  very  poetically, 
"  See  what  a  heavenly  hurry  Saul  was  in,  though 
weakened  down  by  a  distressing  fast.  Behold  him, 
with  great  weakness  of  body  and  load  of  his  guilt, 
staggering  along  to  the  water!  I  almost  fancy  that 
I  see  the  dear  little  man  (he  was  afterward  called 
Paul,  which  signifies  little)  hanging  on  tlie  shoulders 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      215 

of  Ananias,  and  hurrying  Mm  up,  with  his  right  arm 
around  him,  [/  /]  and,  as  they  walked  on,  saying,  Be  of 
good  cheer,  brother  Saul  j  when  you  are  baptized, 
your  sins,  or  the  guilt  of  them,  shall  be  washed 
away." ! ! !  Alexander  Campbell  also  speaks  of  Paul 
and  Ananias  "on  their  way  to  the  water,"  and  of  Paul 
"  on  his  return  from  the  water."  (Debate  with  Eice, 
p.  228.)  But  the  mischief  to  all  their  poetry  is 
that  the  Bible  says  not  one  word  about  all  this. 
There  is  nothing  of  going  down  to  the  water  or 
of  coming  up  from  the  water.  Nor  are  such  expres- 
sions ever  used  when  baptism  is  said  to  have  oc- 
curred within-doors.  "  It  is  also  observable,"  says 
Ewing,  "  that,  after  a  fast  of  three  days,  Paul  was 
baptized  before  he  had  received  either  meat  or 
strength:  (verses  18,  19.)"  He  "arose  and  was 
baptized"  on  the  spot;  and  all  beyond  this  is  like 
Father  Xavier's  immersion  of  fifteen  thousand  in 
one  day — all  fiction. 

Look  at  the  case  of  the  eunuch.  He  was  bap- 
tized on  his  journey  through  the  desert.  Is  a  desert 
a  place  of  "confluxes  of  water"?  Does  the  place 
here  argue  immersion?  The  water  at  which  it  was 
done  is  described,  by  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Eeland,  and 
even  Mr.  Samson,  as  a  fountain  boiling  up  at  the 
foot  of  a  hill  and  absorbed  again  by  the  soil 
from  which  it  springs.  How  absurd  to  talk  of 
immersion  as  argued  from  such  a  locality!  Mr. 
Samson,  from  pei*sonal  observation  of  the  place, 
finds  it  impossible  to  get  through  with  the  im- 
mersion theory  without  supposing  some  artificial 
reservoir  or  other  fixture.  (Baptismal  Tracts,  p. 
160.)    What  a  mania  for  cistern-digging  must  have 


216  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

possessed  these  Jews,  that  they  should  fill  even  the 
desert  with  pools ! 

Cornelius  and  his  friends  were  most  likely  bap- 
tized in  his  own  house.  The  language  of  Peter — 
"Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized  ?" — indicates  with  a  good  degree  of 
certainty  that  no  more  water  was  used  than 
could  be  conveniently  conveyed  to  him.  How  can 
this  argue  immersion  ?  All  room  for  fancy  to 
figure  out  a  walk  to  the  river  is  here  cut  off.  The 
water  icas  brought  to  the  candidates,  not  the  subjects 
led  out  to  the  water.  And,  as  the  bringing  of  the 
water  proves  narrow  limitations  as  to  quantity,  it 
excludes  all  idea  of  immersion.  Indeed,  Mr.  Munro 
has  hit  exactly  upon  the  truth  where  he  says, 
"Among  the  myriads  of  baptisms  of  which  we 
read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  with  the  single 
exception  of  that  of  the  eunuch,  thei'e  is  not  a  hint 
about  going  to  or  from  any  pool  or  river."  The 
places,  then,  cannot  prove  immersion  as  the  mode 
of  baptism. 

But  John's  baptism!  Ay,  John's  baptism!  But 
John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism.  All 
theologians  agree  to  this.  Baptists  themselves 
have  been  forced  to  concede  it.  Eobert  Hall  was 
a  Baptist,  a  scholar,  and  a  full-hearted  man  of 
God.  He  gives  a  long  and  unanswerable  argu- 
ment, showing  that  John's  baptism  was  a  wholly 
different  thing  from  the  ordinance  instituted  by 
Jesus  Christ.  (See  his  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  294.)  The 
distinguished  Dr.  J.  H.  Kurtz,  of  Dorpat,  in  his 
Manual  of  Sacred  History,  says,  "The  baptism  of 
John  does  not  possess  the  rank  and  character  of 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS    CONCERNING    MODE.       217 

Christian  baptism.  The  former  was  merely  a 
symbol ;  the  latter  is  a  sacrament :  the  former  was, 
according  to  the  declaration  of  John  himself,  a 
baptism  with  water  unto  repentance;  the  latter  is 
a  baptism  with  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  whereby 
the  great  salvation  is  fully  appropriated ;  and,  in 
the  case  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  it  was  a  baptism 
with  fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  (P.  278.)  Mr. 
Carson  says  the  two  were  '^essentially  cliff  event  J' 
Nevertheless,  Dr.  Fuller  argues  that  John  baptized 
in  (at)  Jordan;  that  he  must  therefore  have  im- 
mersed the  people  in  the  water;  and  that  there- 
fore all  other  baptisms  were  immersions  and 
nothing  else!  As  well  might  he  argue  that,  as 
"John  baptized  in  the  wilderness,"  he  immersed 
the  people  in  the  sand,  and  that  therefore  all 
baptisms  are  immersions  in  the  sand  !  John  also 
baptized  "  in  Bethabara,  beyond  Jordan."  This  is 
the  name  of  a  town.  Where  it  was  located  is  not 
precisely  known.  Lightfoot  says  "  it  was  situated 
in  the  Scythopolitan  country,  Avhere  the  Jews 
dwelt  among  the  Syrophenicians."  It  certainly 
was  neither  a  lake,  nor  a  pool,  nor  a  river;  and 
how  can  it  prove  that  John  immersed  ?  John  also 
baptized  ''in  or  at  Enon,  near  to  Salim."  Enon 
means  the  fountains  of  On.  And  if  deep  water, 
convenient  for  immersion,  was  the  object  of  the 
baptizer  in  selecting  this  spot  for  his  operations, 
why  did  he  leave  the  river  for  a  few  springs?  Dr. 
Fuller  thinks  it  very  ridiculous  to  suppose  that 
mills  driven  by  water  are  built  upon  firm  streams 
merely  to  supply  drink  for  the  people  who  may 
visit  them  with  their  horses  and  mules  !    But,  when 

19 


218  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

we  see  these  same  establishments  performing  their 
offices  with  equal  facility  where  there  are  no  firm 
streams,  is  it  not  equally  ridiculous  to  insist  that 
they  are  Avater-mills  at  all  ? 

But  we  are  told  "  John  was  baptizing  in  or  at 
Enon,  because  there  were  (Jmdata  polio)  many  waters 
there."  It  is  indeed  not  a  little  amusing  to  see 
how  Baptist  writers  comment  upon  this  phrase. 
Dr.  Fuller  wishes  to  make  it  appear  that  Jiudata 
polla  means  "a  great  conflux  of  water."  He 
quotes  a  number  of  passages,  such  as,  "  His  voice 
w^as  as  the  sound  of  many  waters;"  "  I  heard  a  voice 
from  heaven,  as  the  voice  of  many  waters;"  "The 
Lord  is  mightier  than  the  noise  of  many  waters,  yea, 
than  the  waves  of  the  sea;"  ''The  noise  of  their  wings 
was  as  the  noise  of  many  waters,  as  the  voice  of  the 
Almighty."  Dr.  Eyland  says  that  the  phrase  indi- 
cates a  body  of  water  the  sound  of  which  resembles 
mighty  thunderings,  the  sound  of  a  cataract,  or 
the  roaring  of  the  sea,  and  that  it  is  a  Hebraism 
corresponding  with  mini  rabini,  which  signifies 
many  w^aters,  such  as  the  waves  of  the  sea.  What 
an  ari'ay !  If  we  were  to  listen  to  these  Baptist 
commentators,  Niagara  itself  is  but  "a  tinkling 
rill"  compared  with  these  fountains  of  On  between 
Salim  and  the  Jordan !  Well  may  we  exclaim, 
"Happy  Enon!  ennobled  by  such  mighty  associa- 
tions, by  such  magnificent  alliances  I"  But,  after 
all,  the  question  narrows  itself  down  to  one  of 
simple  geography.  Was  there  ever  a  collection  of 
springs,  or  any  body  of  water,  in  any  district  of 
the  land  of  Judea,  in  any  locality  accessible  to  John 
the  Baptist,  by  which  these  allusions  to  mighty 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      219 

thunders,  cataracts,  and  seas  can  in  the  remotest 
degree  be  justified?  Such  a  chister  of  springs 
would  have  been  the  wonder  of  Judea  and  of  the 
world.  The  memory  of  such  waters  could  not  have 
perished.  The  traces  of  them  would  still  be  seen, 
and  some  faint  echoes  of  their  thunders  would  cer- 
tainly have  reached  our  times.  And  yet  Dr.  Ful- 
ler says,  '^  I  grieve  to  find  several  writers  venturing  to 
assert  that  the  location  of  Enon  is  known!"  (P.  65.) 
Alas  that  such  a  wonder  in  nature  should  have  thus 
perished  without  leaving  a  trace  behind  it !  Eu- 
ropean and  American  travelers  have  explored  the 
Jordan  from  Tiberias  to  the  Dead  Sea ;  but  none  of 
them  have  ever  seen  any  thing  of  this  wonderful 
discharge  of  waters.  In  a  whole  day's  journey 
down  the  Jordan,  from  the  region  of  Scythopolis, 
(eight  miles  south  of  which  Enon  is  said  to  have 
been  located,)  Lieutenant  Lynch  found  no  streams 
emptying  into  the  Jordan  except  such  as  scarcely 
rose  in  consequence  above  mere  trickling  rivulets. 
In  the  time  of  Napoleon  the  Fi'ench  had  a  corps  of 
horse  at  Scythopolis,  and  roamed  the  country  down 
the  Jordan,  particularly  exploring  it  on  the  west; 
but  nothing  did  they  find  answering  to  the  Baptist 
Enon.  Ail  that  history  has  preserved  respecting 
this  wonderful  fountain  is  what  Jerome  repeats 
from  Eusebius,  that  it  was  eight  miles  from 
Scythopolis,  south,  between  Salim  and  the  Jordan. 
Calmet  knows  nothing  about  it.  And  from  the 
time  of  Israel's  exodus  to  the  present  hour  such 
a  thundering  fountain  as  Drs.  Fuller  and  Eyland 
speak  of  has  remained  unknown  to  our  ablest 
geographers,   to   our  most  adventurous  and   ob- 


220  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

servant  travelers,  and  to  our  most  inquisitive 
men.  It  is  enough  to  say,  there  never  was  such 
an  Enon.  Sandys,  according  to  Hamilton,  says 
that  ^^ Enon  are  little  springs  gushing  out,  whose 
waters  are  soon  absorbed  by  the  sands."  And, 
until  some  Baptist  writer  produces  some  accurate 
geographical  description  of  the  fountains  of  On,  to 
persist  in  comparing  Enon  with  the  Euphrates, 
the  Tigris,  Niagara,  and  mighty  thunderings  is  in- 
deed "sinning  by  excess." 

But  does  not  John  say  "there  was  much  water 
there"  ?  So  the  English  Bible  reads.  In  the  original, 
however,  the  jjhrase  is  hudata  polla,  which  Beza 
and  Professor  Stuart  render  '^many  streams  or 
rivulets."  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  ^'hudor"  never 
means  '^  streams."  But  Donnegan  says  it  is  from 
the  word  huo, — to  wet,  to  asperse,  to  rain, — ^and  that 
it  often  signifies  only  the  drops  of  falling  rain  !  De- 
mosthenes against  Callicles  uses  it  in  this  sense. 
And  if  Dr.  Fuller  will  take  the  Septuagint  and 
turn  to  2  Kings  ii.  19,  he  will  find  "  hudata"  ap- 
plied to  waters  which  Maundrell  describes  in  these 
words : — "  They  are  at  present  received  in  a  basin 
about  nine  or  ten  paces  long  and  five  or  six  broad, 
and,  thence  issuing  out  in  good  plenty,  divide  them- 
selves into  several  small  streams,  dispersing  their 
refreshment  to  all  the  field  and  rendering  it  exceed- 
ingly fruitful."  (Taylor's  Facts  and  Evidences,  p. 
176.)  And  if  he  will  refer  to  2  Chron.  xxxii.  4,  ho 
will  find  the  same  phrase  applied  to  a  number  of 
small  fountains.  The  record  reads  thus: — "So 
there  Avas  gathered  much  people  together,  who 
stopped  all  the  fountains  and  the  brook  that  ran 


BAPTIST    ARGUMENTS    CONCEllNINa    MODE.      221 

through  the  midst  of  the  land,  saying,  Why  should 
the  King  of  Assyria  come  and  find  \_poUa  hudata] 
many  waters" — supplies  to  satisfy  the  wants  op 
HIS  army?  AYe  would  therefore  be  fully  authorized 
to  adopt  the  reading,  "  John  was  baptizing  at  the 
fountains  of  On,  because  there  were  many  streams 
there;"  that  is,  not  many  streams  to  immerse  in, 
but  many  streamlets  of  fountain-water,  better 
suited  than  the  Jordan  to  m.eet  the  wants  of  the 
vast  multitudes  who  came  to  hear  the  prophet's 
preaching. 

Professor  Stuart  says,  "A  single  brook  of  very 
small  capacity,  but  a  living  stream,  might,  with 
scooping  out  a  small  place  in  the  sand,  answer 
most  abundantly  all  the  purposes  of  baptism  by 
immersion,  and  answer  them  just  as  well  as  many 
waters  could.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  a  single 
brook  would  not  suffice  for  the  accommodation  of 
the  great  multitudes  who  flocked  to  John,  The 
sacred  writer  tells  us  that  'there  went  out  to  him 
Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  of 
Jordan,'  and  they  were  baptized  by  him.  Of 
course  there  must  have  been  a  great  multitude  of 
people.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  for 
John  to  choose  a  place  that  was  watered  by  many 
streams,  where  all  could  be  accommodated."  (Mode 
of  Baptism,  p.  38.) 

But  Dr.  Eyland  tells  us  that  hudata  polla  is  a 
Hebraism  equivalent  to  mim  rabim,  and  challenges 
the  production  of  proof  that  mi7n  rabim  is  ever 
used  as  synonymous  with  small  streams.  But 
what  is  his  challenge  worth?  In  Numbers  xxi v. 
7,  this  phrase  is  used  to  denote  water  ''poured  out 
19* 


222  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

of  buckets.  In  Ezekiel  xix.  10,  it  is  used  to  denote 
the  small  streams  which  water  vineyards.  What 
thundering  confluxes  of  water  these  must  have 
been! 

As  there  is  no  testimony,  therefore,  that  the 
waters  at  Enon  were  at  all  adapted  to  immersion, 
the  great  drift  of  proof  going  to  show  that  it  was 
a  place  of  rivulets  of  spring-water  and  not  of 
thundering  cataracts,  we  demand  of  the  Baptists 
to  give  a  reason  Avhy  John  left  the  river,  where 
alone  facilities  for  immersion  were  found?  Does 
not  the  fact  of  such  a  change,  from  the  great  river 
to  mere  fountain-streamlets,  prove  that  John's 
baptisms  were  not  by  immersion? 

It  is  useless,  however,  to  pursue  this  point  any 
further.  John's  baptism  was,  at  any  rate,  not  our 
Christian  sacrament;  and  there  is  no  proof  under 
heaven  that  Enon  was  any  thing  more  than  a 
few  springs,  or  that  the  "many  waters  there"  were 
any  thing  more  than  small  streams  issuing  from 
contiguous  sources.  Indeed,  if  the  Evangelist's 
mind  had  been  directed  to  the  waters  of  Enon  by 
the  idea  of  immersion,  it'is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  he  would  rather  have  spoken  of  the  depth 
and  magnitude  of  one  stream  than  thus  have  called 
off  the  attention  to  many. 

How  John  performed  his  baptisms  cannot  be 
decided  with  positive  certainty;  but  there  are  a 
few  facts  bearing  upon  the  subject,  which,  if 
assigned  their  proper  weight,  present  a  strong  and 
commanding  presumption  that  it  was  not  by  im- 
mersion. 

1.  Although  he  for  the  most  part  performed  his 


BAPTIST    ARGUMENTS    CONCERNING    MODE.       223 

ceremony  of  purification  where  there  was  plenty 
of  water,  there  is  no  proof  that  he  ever  went  into  the 
water  to  do  it.  The  truth  of  this  remark  is  so 
clear  that  the  great  Baptist  champion,  Mr.  Carson, 
is  compelled  to  concede  it.  "I  think,"  says  he, 
^^  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  John  the  Baptist 
usually  went  into  the  water  in  baptizing."  And, 
in  order  to  make  out  immersion,  he  is  driven  to  an 
invention  of  fancy  which  thinking  people  must 
regard  as  a  surrender  of  the  cause.  "  The  accounts 
lead  me  to  conclude,"  says  he,  "that  John  chose 
some  place  on  the  edge  of  the  Jordan,  that  admitted 
the  immersion  of  the  person  baptized  while  the  baptizer 
remained  on  the  margin,"  and  that  hence  "there  is 
no  ground  for  the  jest  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
an  amphibious  animal."  But  in  trying  to  avoid 
Scj'Ua  he  has  struck  upon  Charybdis.  Who  ever 
heard  of  a  Baptist  preacher  administering  his  im- 
mersions without  going  into  the  water  with  his 
subjects?  How  can  one  man  immerse  another  in 
water  the  surface  of  which  is  beneath  his  feet? 
And,  if  John  could  not  have  endured  the  amphi- 
bious life  of  going  into  the  water  with  each  of  his 
multitudinous  candidates,  common  sense  will  teach 
every  man  that  he  could  not  possibly  have  held 
out  in  the  sort  of  operation  assigned  to  him  by  the 
boasted  "perspicacity"  of  Mr.  Carson.  "Jerusalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan"  must  needs  denote  a  great  many  people. 
Mr.  Thorn  estimates  the  number  at  two  millions. 
Mr.  Godwin  regards  three  hundred  thousand  as  the 
probable  number  baptized, — an  estimate  in  no  way 
extravagant.    Considering,  then,  that  John's  minis- 


224  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

try  lasted  less  than  a  year,  we  are  forced  to  the 
conclusion  that  to  have  immersed  them  all  would 
have  been  beyond  the  power  of  any  man's  en- 
durance,— a  physical  impossibility. 

2.  In  all  that  is  said  about  John's  baptizing,  and 
of  the  multitudes  of  all  classes  who  were  bajjtized 
by  him,  there  is  not  one  even  remote  allusion  to 
those  preparations  which  immersion  would  have 
called  for.  Upon  this  point  we  prefer  to  express 
ourselves  in  the  language  of  one  who  was  himself 
for  years  a  Baptist  minister: — "Every  one  who  has 
been  accustomed  to  baptize  by  immersion  must 
certainly  know  that  it  is  necessary,  with  respect 
to  decency  and  safety,  to  change  the  dresses  and 
to  have  separate  apartments  for  men  and  women. 
This  is  evidently  necessary,  whether  we  baptize 
in  a  river  or  in  a  baptistery.  Now,  it  is  certain  that, 
although  we  read  of  many  baptizings,  there  is  not 
the  least  intimation  given  either  of  changing  the 
dress  or  of  any  suitable  accommodation  for  the 
different  sexes.  This  is  true  with  reference  to  all 
the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  K^ew  Testament. 
When  our  Lord  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  it  is 
said  he  laid  aside  his  garments.  And  Luke,  speak- 
ing of  those  who  stoned  Stephen,  says.  They  laid 
down  their  clothes  at  a  young  man's  feet  whose 
name  was  Saul.  Now,  if  the  Scriptures  take  notice 
of  the  putting  off  of  garments  for  the  purpose  of 
washing  feet  and  stoning  a  man,  how  comes  it  to 
pass  that,  as  thousands,  upon  supposition  they 
were  baptized  by  immersion,  must  entirely  have 
changed  their  garments,  or  have  done  worse,  the 
Scriptures  should  not  drop  a  single  hint  about  it?" 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      225 

(Edwards  on  Baptism,  p.  193.)  And  "if  the  acr 
of  baptizing,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "had  consisted  of 
immersing  the  subject  in  water,  there  would  surely 
have  been  some  allusion  to  the  lowering  of  his 
body  in  that  supine  direction  which  is,  I  believe, 
commonly  observed  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  it 
under  the  surface;  some  allusion  also  to  that 
stooping  attitude  which  is  at  the  same  time  neces- 
sary on  the  part  of  the  immerser,"  especially  if 
he  stood  on  the  shore.  **But  there  is  nothing  of 
this  kind  to  be  found  in  all  the  Scriptures,  either  in 
the  accompanying  phraseology  or  in  the  name  of 
the  ordinance  itself."  Mr.  Carson  himself  admits, 
"I  do  not  know  a  single  reference  of  the  kind." 

Now,  upon  the  supposition  that  John  immersed 
in  his  baptisms^  this  silence  of  the  Scriptures  on 
these  points  is  not  a  little  surprising.  Let  the 
reader  consider  the  case.  "A  native  of  Judea  re- 
sorts to  the  ministry  of  John  the  baptizcr,  and, 
conscience-stricken  by  the  preaching  of  that  faith- 
ful man,  is  prompted  to  join  the  ranks  of  his  dis- 
ciples. When  he  left  his  home,  he  had  no  more 
thought  of  baptism  than  of  undertaking  a  voyage 
round  the  world.  It  would  be  therefore  pre- 
posterous to  suppose  that  ho  had  made  any  pre- 
paration for  an  observance  which  could  not  possi- 
bly have  entered  into  his  previous  calculations. 
Curiosity  may  have  drawn  him  to  the  forerunner 
of  the  Messiah;  but,  before  returning,  he  feels  it  a 
solemn  duty  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Him 
that  was  to  come.  The  description  does  not  pre- 
sent the  case  of  a  solitary  individual:  like  a  gene- 
ral term,  it  embraces  its  tens  of  thousands.    Now, 


22G  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

on  the  hypothesis  of  immersion,  we  take  leave  to 
ask,  were  such  parties  dressed  or  undressed  in  sub- 
mitting to  the  ordinance?  The  question  is  a  plain 
one,  and  should  be  met  with  a  plain  answer.  It 
suggests  the  only  practical  alternative, — of  baptism 
with  their  garments  on,  or  baptism  in  a  state  of 
nudity;  for  no  one  will  imagine  that  the  audience 
of  John  came  to  his  ministrations  provided  with 
the  bathing-dresses  of  modern  Baptists.  Let  our 
opponents  bring  to  the  rescue  of  their  system 
from  this  raattei*-of-fact  dilemma  a  spirit  of  manly 
candor  and  Christian  moderation.  Dogmatism 
will  not  serve  the  purpose.  Arising  out  of  simple 
practical  details,  the  diflaculty  cannot  be  removed 
by  supercilious  theorizing  or  the  lofty  announce- 
ment of  genex'al  principles  and  laws  of  philology, 
.  .  .  From  Lightfoot,  on  Matthew  iii.  6,  we  learn 
that  when  proselyte  baptism  was  administered  to 
a  female,  the  Eabbis  who  rehearsed  to  her  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  law,  while  she  remained  in  the  water, 
retired  as  she  immersed  her  head,  leaving  her  in 
sole  charge  of  attendants  of  her  own  sex.  She 
was  not,  in  fact,  baptized  by  the  ministers  of  the 
Jewish  sanctuary;  the  hand  of  man  was  not  per- 
mitted to  press  even  her  head  beneath  the  water; 
and  hence  such  proselytes  were  said  to  have  bap- 
tized themselves.  Can  we  reconcile  with  the 
feelings  of  delicacy  which  dictated  this  course 
of  extreme  reserve  the  supposition  of  men  and 
women  publicly,  not  to  say  promiscuously,  sub- 
mitting to  baptism  by  immersion  in  the  Jordan? 
Do  we  not  instinctively  recoil  from  the  idea  of 
connecting  a' practice  so  indecent  with  the  purest 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      227 

and  most  refined  system  of  moral  conduct  ever 
promulgated  to  the  world?  If  the  difficulties  of 
the  case,  as  they  will  crowd  on  every  reflective 
mind,  are  not  insuperable,  we  ask,  with  all  sin- 
cerity, how  are  they  to  be  overcome?  Was  im- 
mersion the  mode?  Were  the  females  dipped  in 
their  ordinary  garments? — or  how?  .  .  .  Dipping 
without  divesting  themselves  of  their  garments 
would  have  been  equally  uncomfortable,  danger- 
ous, and  improbable/'  (Wilson  on  Infant  Baptism, 
pp.  259-261.) 

3.  The  manner  in  which  John,  in  Matt.  iii.  11, 
speaks  of  his  baptism  in  compai'ison  with  the 
Savior's  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  is  such  as  to  dis- 
countenance the  idea  of  immersion: — "I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water:  he  shall  baptize  you 
WITH  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  He  uses 
precisely  the  same  phraseology  with  regard  to  his 
own  baptism  that  he  uses  respecting  the  baptism 
b}^  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  have  already  seen  that 
the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  uniformly 
spoken  of  as  being  done  by  the  pouring  out,  shed- 
ding forth,  and  falling  of  the  baptismal  element 
upon  the  subject.  The  inference  therefore  is 
legitimate  and  strong  that  the  mode  of  action 
was  the  same  in  John's  baptism.  The  very  word 
with  shows  that  he  applied  the  water  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  not  the  subject  to  the  water. 

But  Dr.  Fuller  very  learnedly  tells  us  that  in 
the  original  of  this  passage  the  word  translated 
with  is  en,  and  means  in, — ''  m  water,"  "  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  "m  fire."  But  such  a  criticism  is 
simply  ridiculous.     All  the  lexicographers  tell  us 


228  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

that  671,  with  a  substantive  signifying  the  instru- 
ment or  cause,  always  means  with  and  nothing 
else.  Even  Mr.  Carson,  whose  authority  Dr. 
Fuller  cannot  feel  himself  very  ft-ee  to  set  aside, 
says,  '^  en  may  he  translated  with.  It  signifies 
with  in  classic  Greek,  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint 
or  New  Testament.  It  is  also  as  freely  used  with 
this  verb  (baptizo)  in  the  heathen  authors  as  in 
the  Scriptures.  To  convince  any  one  of  this,  it 
is  necessary  only  to  look  over  the  examples  which 
I  have  produced,  both  with  respect  to  hapto  and 
baptizo."  (Carson  on  Bapt.  pp.  122,  132.)  In  Num- 
bers XX.  20  we  read,  "Edom  came  out  against 
him  [EN  ochlo  kai  en  cheire  ischura\  with  much 
people  and  with  a  strong  hand."  Judges  xi. 
34: — ''And  Jephtha's  daughter  came  out  to  meet 
him  [en  tumpanois]  with  timbrels."  1  Sam.  xvii. 
43: — "Am  I  a  dog,  that  thou  comest  to  me  [en 
ra^cZo]  with  staves?"  Verse  45  : — ''Thou  comest 
to  me  [en  romphoeia,  en  dorati,  kai  en  aspidi']  with 
a  sword,  avith  a  shield,  and  with  a  spear."  So 
Dr.  Campbell  saj^s,  "  I  should  not  lay  much  stress 
on  the  preposition  en,  which,  answering  to  the 
Hebrew  beth,  may  denote  with  as  well  as  in." 
(Dissert,  vol.  iv.  p.  128.)  And  if  Dr.  Fuller's 
criticism  is  to  stand,  then  we  must  read  that  the 
servant  in  Matthew  traded  in  his  talents,  not  with 
them ;  that  Christ  cast  out  devils  in  the  finger  of 
God,  not  ivith  the  finger  of  God;  that  Paul  pro- 
posed to  visit  Corinth  in  a  rod,  not  with  a  rod; 
that  the  Lord  shall  descend  from  heaven  in  the 
trump,  not  with  the  trump;    and  that  the  man- 


BAPTIST   ARGUMExNTS.  CONCERNING   MODE.      229 

child  in  the  Apocalypse  is  to  rule  all  nations  in 
a  rod  of  iron,  not  with  a  rod  of  iron  I 

And  if  we  arc  asked  why  we  render  en  hudati 
WITH  water,  and  en  to  Jordane  at  the  Jordan,  our 
answer  is  ready.  In  the  first  instance  en  is  joined 
with  a  substantive  signifying  means  or  cause,  in 
the  other  with  one  denoting  place.  We  read, 
"My  servant  lieth  at  home  sick/'  not  in  home; 
God  set  Jesus  '^  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the 
heavenly  places/'  not  in  his  own  right  hand; 
Christ  accomplished  his  decease  "aif  Jerusalem/' 
not  in  Jerusalem,  for  he  "  suffered  without  the 
gate/'  John  leaned  on  the  Savior's  bi'east  '^ at 
supper/'  not  in  supper;  Paul,  in  his  voyage,  "ar- 
rived at  Samos  and  tari-icd  at  TrogyUium,"  cer- 
tainly not  in  TrogyUium,  for  how  could  a  vessel 
anchor  in  a  promontory?  Indeed,  Matthias  ob- 
serves that  eri  is  used  with  names  of  places  when 
proximity  alone  is  implied. 

But,  if  we  even  take  Dr.  Fuller's  translation  of 
en,  and  say  that  John  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  we 
have  the  highest  Baptist  authority  that  it  does 
not  necessarily  mean  in  the  water  of  Jordan's 
stream.  Dr.  Carson  says  that  an  army  may  bo 
said  to  fight  in  Troy,  though  never  once  entering 
inside  the  walls  of  Troy.  He  says  that  an  ambus- 
cade may  be  said  to  lie  in  the  river  (en  potamo) 
when  mei-el}'  occupying  the  depressed  grounds 
between  the  water  and  the  remote  outer  banks; 
that  Ulysses,  after  his  shipwreck,  spent  the  night 
(en  potamo)  in  the  river,  although  he  merely  waited 
between  the  water  and  the  acclivity  which  lined 
the  valley  through  which  the  river  passed.     His 

20 


230  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

"words  are,  "  He  might  be  in  the  rive?',  yet  not  in 
the  water:  all  within  the  banks  is  the  river."  (P. 
339.)  So  in  1  Samuel  xv.  5  we  read  that  Saul, 
with  an  army  of  "  two  hundred  thousand  footmen, 
and  ten  thousand  men  of  Judah,  came  and  laid  in 
wait  EN  TO  CHEiMARRO," — literally,  "in  the  brook." 
This  army  only  occupied  the  valley  through 
which  the  brook  ran.  Our  English  Bible  says 
they  "  laid  wait  in  the  valley."  Yet  to  be  in  the 
vale  of  a  stream  or  river  is  said  to  be  in  the  river, 
though  the  water  never  once  be  entered  or  touched; 
and  Dr.  Carson  says,  no  violence  is  done  to  the 
literal  meaning  of  terms  to  speak  of  two  hundred 
and  ten  thousand  men  encamped  in  the  valley  of 
a  brook  as  being  in  the  brook.  Very  well,  then  :  • 
if  John  performed  his  ministrations  in  the  valley  of 
the  Jordan,  anywhere  between  its  extreme  outer 
acclivities,  though  never  once  coming  in  contact 
with  the  stream  of  its  waters,  it  fulfills  all  the 
literal  and  natural  meaning  of  en  to  Jordane,  in  the 
Jordan.  Take  the  preposition  as  at  or  as  in,  it  can- 
not bring  the  Baptizer  or  his  disciples  inside  of  the 
water,  much  less  under  it.  To  this  Dr.  Carson  is 
witness;  and  so  facts  determine.  Maundrell,  in  de- 
scribing this  river,  says,  "After  having  descended 
the  outermost  bank,  you  go  about  a.  furlong  upon  a 
level  strand  before  you  come  to  the  immediate  bank 
of  the  river."  Upon  this  strand  of  the  Jordan  valley 
meets  the  import  of  eti  Jordane.  We  are  therefore 
fully  authorized  to  say  that  John  baptized  with 
water  AT  the  Jordan, — a  phraseology  which  leaves 
no  room  for  the  infei'ence  that  he  immersed. 

4.  It  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  early  Chris- 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS    CONCERNING    MODE.      231 

tians  have  represented  John  as  baptizing  by  af- 
fusion. 

Aurelius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  a.d.  390,  speak- 
ing of  John's  baptism,  says,  ^^  Perfundit  fiuvio,"  he 
poured  icater  on  them  in  the  river. 

Paulinus,  Bishoji  of  Nola,  a  few  years  later, 
says,  "He  [John]  washes  away  the  sins  of  be- 
lievers infusis  lymphis,"  by  the  pouring  of  water. 

Bernhard,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  our  Lord 
by  John,  says,  ^' Infundit  aquam  capiti  creatoris 
creatiira,"  the  creature  poured  water  on  the  head 
of  the  creator. 

And  with  these  statements  agree  many  ancient 
pictures.  We  now  have  before  us  a  copy  of  a 
representation  in  Mosaic  of  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
preserved  in  the  church  in  Cosmedin,  at  Eavenna, 
which  Avas  erected  in  the  year  401.  It  presents 
the  Savior  standing  in  the  margin  of  the  Jordan, 
partially  in  the  water,  and  John  on  a  rock,  with  a 
shell  in  his  hand,  pouring  water  on  the  Redeemer's 
head.  We  have  before  us  another,  from  the 
church  on  the  Via  Ostiensis,  at  Eome.  The 
picture  itself  is  on  a  plate  of  brass,  partly  en- 
graved and  partly  in  relief  The  door  to  which  it 
is  affixed  bears  date  1070;  but  the  plate  is  much 
older  than  the  door,  and,  from  the  inscriptions  in 
Greek,  is  manifestly  of  Greek  origin  and  agreed  to 
be  of  very  ancient  workmanship.  In  this  picture 
Christ  is  not  even  in  the  water,  but  standing  near 
the  stream,  whilst  John  with  a  shell  is  pouring 
water  on  his  head.  Forming  the  centre-piece  of 
the  dome  of  a  baptistery  at  Eavenna  which  was 
built  and  decorated  in  the  year  454,  we  have  an- 


232  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

other  representation  of  the  baptism  of  Christ.  As 
in  the  one  first  named,  he  is  standing  partially  in 
the  water,  and  John,  from  a  rock  above,  is  pouring 
out  water  on  his  head.  Of  the  genuineness  and 
antiquity  of  these  pictures  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt.  And  if  those  Avho  made  them  and 
assigned  them  their  places  (though  believed  ordi- 
narily to  have  performed  their  own  baptisms  by 
immersion)  entertained  it  as  their  fixed  belief,  at 
this  early  period,  that  John  baptized  hy  affusion, 
are  we  not  justified  in  j^resuming  that  he  really 
did  baptize  something  after  the  mode  which  they 
have  represented  in  his  baptism  of  Christ? 

But  Dr.  Fuller  argues  that  this  cannot  be,  be- 
cause the  record  states  that  "  Jesus,  when  he  was 
baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of  [apd]  the 
water."  How  could  he  have  come  "ow^  of  the 
water"  unless  he  had  been  in  it?  But,  even  if  he 
had  been  in  it,  that  does  not  prove  that  he  Avas 
under  it.  The  young  man  in  Tobit  was  in  the 
river,  but  not  under  the  water.  Dr.  Fuller  often 
goes  into  the  water  and  comes  out  of  it  without 
being  under  it.  This  itself  would  be  a  sufficient 
answer  to  the  objection,  though  we  are  not  necessi- 
tated to  rest  upon  it.  Dr.  Fuller  certainly  will 
not  contend  that  apo  ordinarily  means  out  of,  much 
less  from  under.  His  master  of  Tubbermore  saj's, 
"The  proper  translation  of  apo  is  from,  and  not 
out  of.  I  deny  that  it  ever  signifies  out  of."  (Carson 
on  Bapt.  pp.  126,  137.)  Jesus,  therefore,  only 
went  u]i  from  the  water,  not  out  of  it.  Nay,  more : 
if  apo  NEVER  means  out  of,  the  demonstration  is 
irresistible  that  John's   baptism  was   by  affusion 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONCERNING    MODE.      233 

and  not  by  immersion;  for  if  Jesus  did  not  come 
out  of  the  water  he  was  not  even  in  it,  much  less 
under  it. 

Is  it  not  utterly  unwarrantable,  then,  for  any 
man  to  assert  that  the  baptisms  of  John  were  total 
immersions?  And  if  John's  baptisms  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  river  were  not  immersions,  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  no  other  baptisms  where  it  would  be  less 
than  insanity  to  pretend  to  argue  immersion  from 
the  places  at  which  they  were  performed 

Professor  Wilson  has  a  paragraph  upon  this 
general  point,  which  we  are  tempted  to  quote, 
and  which  we  transfer  to  our  pages  with  the 
more  freedom  because  his  able  and  lucid  work  on 
this  controversy  has  not  met  as  yet  with  a  pub- 
lisher in  this  country.  "The  argument  for  im- 
mersion founded  on  the  places,"  says  he,  "has 
always  appeared  to  us  to  be  feebleness  personified. 
"^'»t  that  Baptists  do  allege  this  consideration  in 
their  own  favor  is  unquestionable.  How  stand 
the  facts  of  Scriptuie  history?  Out  of  nine  or  ten 
localities  specified  ii  the  New  Testament  as  the 
scenes  of  the  administration  of  baptism,  only  two 
— Enon  and  the  Jordan — possess  a  liberal  supply 
of  water.  This  fact  will  be  found  to  grow  in  im- 
portance the  more  it  is  pondered,  especially  in  con- 
nection with  the  efforts  of  Baptist  writers  to  turn 
it  to  the  account  of  immersion.  Had  the  Scrip- 
ture instances  uniformly  associated  the  ordinance 
with  'much  water,'  or  had  this  condition  been 
realized  in  the  majority  of  cases,  their  argument 
would  have  been  plausible.  But  the  divine  record 
presents  the  reverse  of  all  this.     Much  water  is 

20* 


234  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

the  exception,  little  water  the  rule.  The  ordinance 
could  indeed  be  administered  in  the  river  Jordan 
and  at  the  many  streams  of  Enon;  but  so  simple 
was  the  rite  tliat  its  performance  appears  to  have 
been  equally  convenient  in  a  private  house,  a 
prison,  or  a  desert.  If,  then,  the  volume  of  the 
Jordan  is  requisite  to  pour  vigor  into  the  Baptist 
argument  for  immersion,  how  sapless  and  feeble 
must  that  argument  become  when  its  nutriment  is 
drawn  from  the  stinted  supply  of  a  prison  or  the 
thirsty  soil  of  a  wilderness !  The  very  stress  laid 
on  the  small  minority  of  instances  apparently 
favorable  to  immersion  certifies  for  the  strength 
of  the  opposing  view,  which  claims  for  its  basis 
the  decided  and  overwhelming  majority."  (Infant 
Baptism,  pp.  257,  258.) 


CHAPTEE  XVI. 

BAPTIST  ARGUMENTS   CONTINUED, 

We  come  now  to  notice  Dr.  Fuller's  third  and 
fifth  arguments.  The  fourth  we  are  at  a  loss  to 
comprehend.  He  says,  "It  is  based  upon  the  act 
performed  in  baptizing."  What  act?  His  theory 
admits  no  act  but  immersion.  And  to  assert 
that  immersion  is  immersion,  and  that  therefore 
baptism  is  immersion,  is  a  method  of  argumentation 
so  far  above  our  capacity  that  we  leave  it  with  the 
quondam  lawyer  from  whom  it  comes,  to  be  ad- 
mired by  those  of  his  friends  who  may  be  able  to 


BAl-TlST   ARGUMENTS   CONTINUED.  235 

sound  its  mysterious  depths.  It  far  transcends 
all  our  science.  We  take  his  third  and  fifth  argu- 
ments together,  because,  though  introduced  with 
imposing  pomp,  they  both  turn  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  two  little  Greek  prepositions,  eis  and  ek, 
as  contained  in  one  single  passage  of  Scripture. 
He  tells  us  that  eis  means  into,  and  ek,  out  of; 
that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  "went  down  both 
(eis)  into  the  water"  and  came  up  "  (ek)  out  of  the 
water;"  that  therefore  the  eunuch  must  have  been 
immersed;  and  that  therefore  baptism  must  be 
immersion  and  nothing  else. 

]S"ow,  if  we  were  even  to  admit  his  premises,  his 
conclusion  would  not  follow.  "We  have  often  gone 
into  the  water,  and  as  often  come  out  of  the  water, 
without  having  been  immersed.  Indeed,  the  eis 
and  the  ek  apply  here  as  well  to  Philip  as  to  the 
eunuch;  and,  if  eis  and  ek  are  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  eunuch  went  under  the  water,  they  must 
prove  that  Philip  also  went  under  the  water, — which 
would  be  a  little  more  than  agreeable  either  to  Dr. 
Fuller's  theory  or  practice. 

But  this  argument  of  our  Baptist  friends  also 
takes  as  its  basis  that  eis  and  ek  mean  directly  and 
only  into  and  out  of.  This  we  dispute.  Scapula 
gives  ad  as  the  first  meaning  of  eis;  ad  means  to, 
toward,  at,  close  by.  Bretschneider  also  gives  ad  as 
the  first  meaning  of  eis,  and  Stuart  agrees  with 
him.  Buttman  gives  its  leading  signification  to, 
unto.  Sckrevelius  gives  its  first  meaning  by  ad. 
Homer  constantly  uses  es,  eis,  eiso  in  the  sense  of 
being  at,  arriving  at,  going  to.  In  telling  the  fate  of 
the  Greeks,  he  says  they  came  (eis)  to  Troy,  but 


236  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

never  came  into  it,  having  been  slain  before  it. 
And  if  eis  always  means  i7ito,  then  we  must  read, 
"The  men  of  Nineveh  repented  info  the  preaching 
of  Jonas,"  not  at  the  preaching;  Jesus  went  through 
the  cities  and  villages  "journeying  in  Jerusalem," 
not  toward  Jerusalem ;  the  healed  demoniac  of  Ga- 
dara  was  sent  into  his  friends,  not  to  his  friends ; 
Mary  went  "  into  the  grave  to  weep,"  not  u7ito  the 
grave;  the  women,  at  the  apparition  of  angels, 
"  bowed  down  their  faces  into  the  earth,"  not  to  the 
earth;  Mary  ''fell  down  into  Jesus'  feet,"  not  at 
his  feet ;  Jesus  came  into  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  not 
"to  the  grave;"  Mary  Magdalene  came  into  the 
sepulchre,  not  "unto  the  sepulchre;"  Paul's  journey 
from  Puteoli  was  into  Eome,  not  "toward  Eome;" 
Abraham  staggered  not  into  the  promises  of  God, 
not  "he  staggered  not  at  the  promises  of  God;" 
"Let  us  go  into  Jordan,  and  take  thence  every  man  a 
beam,  and  let  us  make  us  a  place  there  where  wo 
may  dwell,"  not  let  us  go  unto  Jordan.  In  the  same 
way  we  would  have  to  read  in  Isa.  xxxvi.  2  that 
"the  king  sent  Eabshakeh  from  Lachish  into  Je- 
rusalem," although  it  was  only  to  the  fullers'  field 
outside  of  the  walls;  and  that  Christ  directed  Peter 
to  go  into  the  sea  to  throw  his  hook,  not  to  the  sea. 
But  why  multiply  examples?  The  Campbellite- 
Baptist  version  of  the  Bible,  in  various  places, 
translates  eis — to,  not  into.  Dr.  Carson  says,  "I  am 
far  from  denying  that  eis  sometimes  signifies  iinto. 
...  It  applies  when  the  thing  in  motion  enters 
within  the  object  to  which  it  refers.  There  are 
instances,  however,  in  which  the  motion  ends  at 
the  object:'   (P.  131.)     And   the  Lewisburg  Pro- 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS  CONTINUED.  237 

feasor,  Mr.  Curtis,  says,  "That  it  may  mean  at  is 
not  questioned,  because  all  the  prepositions  are  thus 
indefinite."  (P.  154.)  It  is  utterly  futile,  therefore, 
for  Baptists  to  attempt  to  argue  immersion  from 
this  word. 

But,  though  nothing  can  be  made  for  immersion- 
ism  out  of  eis,  Dr.  Fuller  seems  to  think  that  ek 
settles  the  case.  He  says, "  £'A',  with  a  verb  of  motion, 
always  signifiesoM^o/."  Indeed!  But  we  have  learned 
ere  this  that  this  writer's  imperious  announce- 
ments in  connection  with  this  subject  are  neither 
wonderful  for  accuracy  nor  final  in  authority. 
Let  us  to  the  Book.  In  John  xiii.  4  it  is  said  of 
Jesus,  "He  riseth  up /rom  supper."  Does  this  mean 
out  o/ supper?  In  John  xx.  1,  Mary  saw  "the  stone 
taken  from  the  sepulchre."  Does  this  mean  out  of 
the  sepulchre?  How  can  Dr.  Fuller  take  out  of  a, 
thing  what  never  was  in  it  ?  See  Matt,  xxvii.  30, 
and  Mark  xv.  46.  In  Luke  xii.  36  the  Savior 
speaks  of  returning  from  the  wedding.  Did  he 
mean  out  of  the  wedding  ?  The  same  ek  is  used  in 
the  Sphaerics  of  Theodosius  to  signify  the  drawing 
of  a  line  from  a  mathematical  point,  as  "from  the 
pole  of  a  circle."  Will  common  sense  tolerate  the 
idea  of  getting  into  or  coming  out  of  a  mathematical 
point  ?  The  same  word  is  used  by  Lycophron  in 
the  sentence  where  the  artist  is  said  to  "form  men 
from  the  extremity  of  the  foot."  Is  there  any  such 
thing  as  forming  men  out  of  the  extremity  of  the 
foot  ?  We  also  read  of  messengers  sent  ek — "from 
the  chief  priests ;"  does  it  mean  that  they  came  out 
of  the  chief  priests  ?  In  Acts  xii.  7  it  is  said  of  the 
imprisoned  Peter,  "  His  chains  fell  off  from  his 


238  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

hands."  Did  they  fall  out  of  his  hands?  Dr. 
Carson  answers  yes : — "  The  chain  must  have  been 
fastened  somewhere  within  the  part  of  the  body 
WHICH  THE  word  HAND  DESIGNATES"  ! ! !  The  cause 
of  the  immersionists  is  hard  run.  Dr.  Carson  is 
caught  in  Peter's  chain  !  Behold  him  rage !  £k 
must  mean  out  of,  even  though  it  should  make  the 
shearing  of  sheep  the  cutting  of  their  fleeces  out 
of  them!  (Pp.  340,  342.)  But  it  is  useless.  In  all 
these  instances  ek  is  joined  with  verbs  of  motion, 
and  yet  it  will  receive  only  the  sense  of  apo, — 
FROM.  Where,  then,  is  Dr.  Fuller's  assertion  ?  And 
how  can  ek,  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the 
eunuch,  prove  that  eis  there  means  any  thing  more 
than  unto,  or  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  did  not 
merely  come  from  the  water,  and  not  out  of  it? 

Add  now  but  two  facts,  and  the  necessity  for 
rendering  eis  and  ek  unto  and  from  in  this  account, 
or,  at  least,  of  so  interpreting  them  as  to  exclude 
the  idea  of  immersion,  will  distinctly  appear.  First, 
the  passage  which  Philip  expounded,  the  exposition 
of  which  led  the  eunuch  to  ask  to  be  baptized, 
contains  a  Messianic  prophecy  which  Jerome  and 
others  understood  of  baptism,  and  which  Philip 
doubtless  so  interpreted  at  the  time.  Else  how 
could  the  eunuch  have  been  made  to  understand 
any  thing  about  baptism  ?  And  in  that  very  pre- 
diction mode  is  indicated.  *'So  shall  he  [the  Mes- 
siah] SPRINKLE  many  nations."  And  would  it  not 
be  unreasonably  violent  to  suppose  that  the 
preacher  did  contraiy  to  the  very  text  before 
him  ?  But,  secondly,  if  any  reliance  is  to  be  placed 
in  the  accounts  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  sustained 


BAPTIST   ARGUMEiNTS   CONTINUED.  239 

as  they  have  been  by  modern  researches  and  a 
general  tradition  that  reaches  back  to  the  apostles' 
times,  there  was  not  water  enough  there  to  im- 
merse the  eunuch  in.  It  was  not  a  river  or  a  pool, 
but  a  small  spring  in  a  desert  region,  the  waters 
of  which  were  swallowed  up  again  by  the  very  soil 
from  which  they  proceeded.  And  to  persist  in 
arguing  for  immersion  on  the  precarious  ground 
of  two  indefinite  little  prepositions,  where  it  is 
almost  certain  that  no  immersion  could  by  any 
means  have  taken  place,  is  to  exalt  the  empire  of 
zeal  over  reason,  truth,  and  common  sense.  And, 
though  Dr.  Fuller  may  continue  to  denounce  us  as 
''  hopeless  victims  of  hydrophobia,"  is  it  not  better 
to  be  rationally  hydrophobic  than  insanely  aquatic? 

As  Bloomfield  is  often  quoted  by  our  Baptist 
friends  in  favor  of  immersion,  we  here  insert  his 
note  on  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch.  Speaking  of 
Philip,  he  says,  "  He  baptized  him,  no  doubt,  with 
the  use  of  the  proper  form;  but  whether  by  im- 
mersion or  by  sprinkling  is  not  clear.  Doddridge 
maintains  the  foi'mer,  but  Lardner  (ap.  Newc.)  the 
latter  view,  and,  I  conceive,  more  rightly.  On 
both  having  descended  into  the  water,  Philip  seems 
to  have  taken  up  loater  with  his  hands  and  poured  it 

COPIOUSLY  ON  THE  EUNUCH's  HEAD." 

And  let  it  further  be  noted  that  this  case  of  the 
baptism  of  the  eunuch  is  the  only  instance  in  the 
whole  New  Testament,  the  only  case  out  of  the 
many  thousands  referred  to  in  the  Scriptures, 
in  which  eis  and  ek  are  used  to  express  the  ap- 
proach or  withdrawal  of  the  candidate  to  or  from 
the  water  of  baptism.      It  stands  alone  among 


240  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

myriads.  And,  though  these  are  the  strongest 
words  ever  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  such  con- 
nection, they  fail  to  prove  that  the  eunuch  even  so 
much  as  touched  foot  in  the  water  when  he  was 
baptized;  and  much  less  that  he  was  totally  im- 
mersed. Some  have  thought  that  he  was  immersed; 
but  there  is  nothing  to  prove  it.  We  think  the 
circumstances  imply  that  he  was  not.  He  hardly 
would  have  stripped  himself  naked  in  the  public 
road ;  nor  is  it  probable  that  he  would  have  under- 
taken to  travel  with  his  clothing  dripping  wet.  It 
is  not  likely  that  Philip  went  contrary  to  the 
Scripture-text  before  him,  or  that  he  immei'sed  him 
where  the  strong  presumption  is  that  there  was 
not  water  enough  to  do  it.  And,  having  disposed 
of  the  case  of  the  eunuch,  we  have  forever  disposed 
of  eis  and  ek. 

Dr.  Fuller's  next  resort  is  to  what  he  calls 
"allusions  to  baptism."  Some  of  the  passages 
quoted  under  this  head  we  have  already  disposed 
of,  and  we  deem  it  unimportant  to  dwell  long  on 
the  rest.  The  first  we  notice  is  where  Paul  speaks 
of  the  Fathers  as  "  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."  We  deny  that  there  was 
any  immersion  in  this  case.  Indeed,  if  baptism  is 
immersion,  then  the  Egyptians  were  baptized  and 
not  the  Israelites,  and  the  sacred  record  stands 
contradicted.  The  children  of  Israel  passed  through 
the  sea  ''upon  dry  ground."  They  were  neither 
dipped  in  the  cloud  nor  plunged  in  the  water. 
And  if  Paul  had  designed  by  this  language  to  set 
forth  the  outward  mode  of  administering  Christian 
baptism,  upon  Dr.   Fuller's  theory,  he  certainly 


BAPTIST    ARGUMENTS   CONTINUED.  241 

selected  the  wrong  parties  for  his  examples;  for 
the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  really  were  immersed,  which 
is  not  true  of  the  followers  of  Moses.  They  walked 
on  dry  land.  They  were  not  dipped,  unless  one 
can  be  dipped  on  dry  land.  If  they  were  wet  at 
all,  it  was  by  rain  or  spray,  not  by  being  dipped  in 
the  sea.  Moreover,  Christian  baptism  demands 
an  administrator;  but  there  was  none  in  the  case 
referred  to.  Christian  baptism  requires  the  ele- 
ment to  be  brought  in  contact  with  the  subject; 
but  the  Israelites  were  not  touched  by  wave  or 
cloud.  And,  so  far  as  baptism  consists  of  immersion, 
wc  are  forced  to  conclude  that  the  passage  of  the 
Eed  Sea  was  no  baptism.  That  passage  was  a 
figure  of  Christian  baptism  in  its  import, — in  its 
moral,  practical,  and  theological  significance,  and 
not  in  the  mode  of  its  performance.  Augustine 
calls  it  a  salvation  by  icater,  and  for  that  reason  it 
is  called  a  baptism.  It  was  a  glorious  deliverance 
of  the  ancient  Israelites  from  the  hands  of  their 
enemies,  a  solemn  separation  between  them  and 
their  heathen  associations,  a  mysterious  conse- 
cration of  God's  own  chosen  to  his  exclusive 
service,  a  miraculous  regeneration,  in  which  a  new 
and  holy  nation  was  born,  an  impi-essive  seal  of 
God's  presence  and  covenant  with  his  people.  All 
these  are  things  to  be  said  of  the  holy  sacrament 
of  Christian  baptism  now;  and  it  is  in  these 
respects,  and  in  these  alone,  that  the  passage 
through  the  Eed  Sea  is  called  a  baptism.  It  no 
more  proves  that  we  must  be  immersed  in  order 
to  be  baptized  than  it  proves  that  we  must  be 
sprinkled  with  mists  of  spray,  such  as  doubtless 


/ 


242  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

might  have  been  seen  falling  into  that  wonderful 
pathway  from  the  boisterous  siirges  above.  The 
Psalmist  thus  refers  to  the  wonderful  mii-acle : — 
"Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a  flock  by  the  hand 
of  Moses  and  Aaron.  ,  .  .  The  waters  saw  thee,  O 
God:  the  waters  saw  thee ;  they  were  afraid:  the 
depths  also  were  troubled :  the  clouds  poured  out 
water."  If  there  is  any  mode  of  baptism  here,  it  is 
a  sprinkling,  or  such  2i  pouring  out  of  water  as  falls 
in  drops.  The  Israelites  were  baptized,  but  not 
immersed;  the  Egyptians  were  immersed,  but  not 
baptized.  How  is  this,  if  baptism  is  immersion? 
But,  says  Mr.  Carson,  "Immersion  does  not  neces- 
Barily  imply  wetting;"  that,  though  the  people 
were  not  wet,  they  were  immersed;  and  that, 
though  this  immersion  was  "different"  from  Chris- 
tian baptism,  it  was  yet  "  similar"  to  it !  The 
doctor  seems  to  be  still  entangled  in  Peter's  chain. 
He  had  hard  work  of  it.  (P.  120.) 

Dr.  Fuller's  next  reference  is  to  1  Peter  iii.  20, 
21,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of  "the  ark  .  ,  . 
wherein  few — that  is,  eight  souls — were  saved  by 
water,  the  figure  according  to  which  baptism  doth 
now  save  us."  But  where  is  the  immersion  in  this 
case?  Noah  and  those  saved  with  him  were  not 
immersed.  By  that  flood  they  were  purified  fi'om 
the  wicked,  and  consecrated  as  the  new  seed  to  re- 
populate  the  earth;  but  they  rode  above  it,  un- 
harmed by  the  shoreless  waves  which  overwhelmed 
and  drowned  all  else  of  human  kind.  They  alone 
of  all  men  were  not  immersed;  and  to  make  that 
gracious  exemption  a  figure  of  immersion  is  figuring 
at  a  premium !     The  likeness  which  Peter  finds  in 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONTINUED.  243 

the  ark  in  which  Noah  was  saved  we  interpret  of 
the  spiritual  significance  of  baptism,  of  the  purifi- 
cation of  the  soul  by  God's  Spirit,  and  its  salvation 
from  the  judgments  which  shall  overwhelm  the 
wicked.  But,  as  Dr.  Fuller  has  introduced  it  as 
proof  of  mode,  he  is  bound  by  the  logical  conse- 
quences of  his  own  premises.  And  who  does  not 
see  that,  if  the  figure  of  which  the  apostle  speaks 
refers  to  mode,  the  case  of  Noah  absolutely  excludes 
immersion  and  establishes  affusion  as  the  only 
legitimate  way?  The  rains  fell  upon  the  ark  from 
above,  but  the  waves  never  overflowed  it  from 
below. 

Dr.  Fuller  refers  us  next  to  Eom.  vi.  3,  5,  and 
Col.  ii.  12.  In  these  words  we  have  a  sublime 
description  of  the  wonderful  efficacy  of  the  gospel 
upon  the  inner  being  of  believers,  and  of  a  con- 
dition of  things  resulting  from  their  oneness  with 
Christ  which  amounts  to  an  actual  reproduction 
of  his  crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
in  the  experiences  of  their  hearts.  But,  sublime 
and  spiritual  as  these  Scriptures  are,  the  attempt 
has  been  made  to  harness  them  down  as  the  mere 
dray-horses  to  di-ag  out  of  the  mire  a  hopeless 
sectarian  cause.  Dr.  Fuller  so  robs  them  of  their 
literal  force  and  meaning  as  to  present  them  as  the 
offspring  of  a  luxuriant  poetic  imagination  em- 
ployed upon  remote  resemblances  of  a  point  of 
external  ceremony, — as  the  mere  intellectual  play 
of  a  fancy  fond  of  tracing  faint  analogies  and  of 
amusing  itself  with  alliterations. 

According  to  our  estimate  of  the  type  of  Paul's 
mind  and  of  the  connection  and  import  of  these 


244  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

passages,  they  are  the  words  of  a  man  of  God 
laboring  to  express  some  of  the  profoundest  mys- 
teries of  the  transforming  power  of  the  Savior's 
grace.  The  baptism  of  which  he  speaks  is  neither 
the  baptism  of  immersion  or  affusion,  or  of  any 
other  mode  of  performing  an  external  rite,  but  the 
inner  and  miraculous  purification  of  man's  whole 
moral  nature  by  incorporation  with  Jesus  Christ. 
The  crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  to 
which  he  alludes,  so  far  from  being  mere  images 
of  immersion  and  emersion,  are  literal  terms, 
denoting  realities,  and  pointing  not  to  a  figu- 
rative but  to  an  actual  death  of  every  believer  to 
his  sins  and  his  real  resurrection  to  new^ness  of  life. 
The  cross  here  is  not  the  cross  of  going  under  the 
water,  but  the  inward  crucifixion  of  the  old  man 
with  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  The  parallel  in  the 
apostle's  mind  is  not  between  the  outward  mode 
of  external  baptism  and  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  the  Savior,  but  between  these  par- 
ticulars of  his  passion  and  the  inward  spiritual 
experiences  of  those  who  truly  are  his.  Ilis  object 
is  to  show,  not  that  Christians  ought  to  walk  in 
newness  of  life  because  figuratively  raised  from  a 
watery  gi'ave  in  an  outward  ceremony,  but  that 
justification  by  faith,  so  far  from  ministering  to 
licentiousness,  carries  with  it  and  effects  in  the 
soul  an  extinction  of  man's  licentious  and  sinful 
being,  and  sets  np  in  its  place  a  new  and  holy 
creature;  that  it  actually  transfers  to  the  believer's 
heart  the  whole  history  of  the  Savior's  passion, 
and  continues  it  there  as  a  thing  now  transpiring 
in  the  hidden  experiences  of  every  true  disciple. 


BAPTIST  ARGUMENTS  CONTINUED.  245 

Dr.  Fuller's  interpretation  takes  in  about  as  much 
of  the  real  sublimity  of  these  passages  as  the  stupid 
traveler  at  Eome  took  in  of  the  grandeur  of  the 
Coliseum  by  examining  a  detached  piece  of  mortar 
from  its  walls. 

But  if  we  were  even  to  admit  the  Baptist  inter- 
pretation, and  agree  that  Paul  is  here  tracing  a 
comparison  between  the  mode  of  baptism  and  the 
crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
then  the  apostle  comes  before  us  in  the  absurd 
position  of  attempting  to  I'un  an  analogy  between 
things  in  no  way  analogous.  There  is  no  mode 
of  baptism  of  which  we  have  ever  heard  which 
takes  in,  even  in  remotest  resemblance,  the  various 
facts  of  this  part  of  the  Savior's  history.  Take  the 
most  favorable  particulars, — the  burial  and  resur- 
rection. What  resemblance  is  there  between  water 
— the  softest  and  most  yielding  of  visible  substances 
— and  a  solid  rock,  the  very  image  of  durability  ? 
What  likeness  between  dipping  a  man  in  a  fluid 
and  depositing  a  dead  body  in  a  horizontal  exca- 
vation in  the  breast  of  a  declivity?  What  simi- 
larity between  the  wading  of  a  living  man  into  a 
stream  or  cistern  and  the  bearing  of  a  corpse  to  its 
final  resting-place  ?  What  analogy  between  the 
hasty  lifting  up  of  a  strangling  subject  from  a 
plunge  in  the  water  and  the  triumphant  resur- 
rection of  the  reanimated  Jesus  in  the  strength  of 
his  own  omnipotence?  What  similitude  between 
the  glorified  body  of  the  rising  Savior  and  the 
drowned  and  dripping  aspect  of  the  Baptist  sub- 
ject coming  up  from  his  immersion?  Could  any 
thing  be  more  unlike  than  Christ  leaving  his  grave- 

21* 


246  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

clothes  in  his  sepulchre  of  rock  and  coming  forth 
unaided  in  his  incorruptible  body,  and  a  man  lifted 
hastily  from  the  water,  the  same  clothing  sticking 
sadly  to  him  and  he  looking  a  great  deal  worse 
than  before  his  immersion  ?  Is  it  not  amazing 
that  any  human  mind  could  have  imagined  that 
such  a  "  sorry  sight"  bore  any  resemblance  to  the 
majestic  and  glorious  resurrection  of  our  blessed 
Lord?  (See  Dr.  Webster's  Water-Baptism  Ex- 
plained, pp.  19,  32.)  No  wonder  that  Dr.  Fuller 
himself  is  so  embarrassed  with  these  discrepancies 
as  to  admit  for  once  that  ''The  manner  is  no- 
thing" !  (P.  74.)  Had  he  made  this  admission 
from  the  start,  and  kept  himself  to  it,  he  would 
have  relieved  his  book  of  much  false  criticism 
and  unsound  reasoning,  and  spared  himself  the 
"pain"  of  pronouncing  sentence  of  excommuni- 
cation upon  millions  of  God's  own  accepted  sons 
and  daughters. 

But,  again :  what  the  apostle  in  verses  3  and  4 
calls  baptism  into  Christ,  and  into  his  death  and 
burial,  in  verse  5  he  calls  planting  in  the  likeness  of 
Christ's  death.  But  what  resemblance  is  there  be- 
tween immersion  and  Christ's  death,  or  between 
immersion  and  planting  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's 
death?  Was  he  put  to  death  by  drowning?  He  was 
not  thrust  down  in  the  water,  but  lifted  up  upon  the 
cross.  He  did  not  die  by  being  gently  sunk  into  a 
yielding  fluid,  but  by  being  violently  nailed  upon  an 
unyielding  stake.  Neither  is  immersion  in  water  a 
representation  of  the  idea  of  planting.  What  simili- 
tude is  there  between  the  dripping,  soiled,  uncom- 
fortable-looking man,  lifted  by  another  from  the 


BAPTIST   ARGUMENTS   CONTINUED.  247 

troubled  water,  and  the  beautiful  young  plant, 
painted  by  the  rays  and  freshened  by  the  showers 
of  heaven,  rising  imperceptibly  and  noiselessly  by 
the  power  of  an  inward  life  and  vigor?  If  burial 
into  Christ's  death  by  baptism,  then,  is  the  same  as 
planting  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death, — as  the 
Betting  of  the  scion  of  the  new  spiritual  man  by 
the  crucifixion  of  the  old, — is  it  not  clear  as  lan- 
guage can  make  it  that  the  idea  of  immersion  is 
entirely  excluded  ? 

Once  more  :  the  burial  spoken  of  in  these  pass- 
ages is  not  a  burial  in  baptism,  but  a  burial  in 
Christ's  death.  Will  language  tolerate  the  idea  of 
immersion  in  the  death  of  another?  Was  Christ's 
crucifixion  a  fluid  ?  There  is  purification  in  Christ's 
death,  and  by  that  purification  the  old  man  with 
his  vestment  of  vices  is  buried  with  Christ,  never  to 
be  raised  again.  But  immersion  in  Christ's  death, 
and  that  in  the  manner  or  "  likeness"  of  that  death, 
— i.e.  in  a  way  resembling  crucifixion, — is  an  asso- 
ciation of  incoherencies  that  may  be  comprehen- 
sible to  a  Carolina  lawyer,  but  surely  not  to 
common  sense. 

Let  us  not  be  carried  away,  then,  as  too  many 
have  been,  by  the  mere  sound  of  a  word.  The 
burial  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  is  not  a  mere 
figurative,  but  a  literal  and  real,  burial, — an  actual 
extinction  of  the  carnal  mind,  and  an  actual  ab- 
straction and  concealment  of  it  in  the  deep  abyss 
of  eternal  sepulture.  There  is  not  one  of  all  these 
allusions  that  sustains  the  Baptist  theory;  no  just 
laws  of  exegesis  will  permit  them  to  be  thus  tied 
down  to  the  signification  of  mere  mode.     They 


248  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINES. 

prove  that  baptism  is  a  sanctification,  but  they  do 
not  prove  that  it  is  immersion,  or  that  immersion 
has  any  thing  to  do  with  it. 


CHAPTEE  XYII. 

THE  HISTORY   OP  BAPTISM. 


"We  come  now  to  notice  our  author's  last  argument. 
It  is  drawn  from  what  he  calls  the  history  of  baptism. 
The  substance  of  it  is  to  this  effect :  that  from  the 
time  of  John  and  Christ  to  the  third  century  bap- 
tism was  invariably  administered  by  the  total  im- 
mersion of  the  candidate,  and  that  the  present  mode 
of  administering  this  ordinance  is  a  superstitious 
contrivance  of  a  degenerate  and  corrupt  theology. 
Shades  of  our  fathers!  is  this  history?  History  is 
fact;  but  these  assertions  are  not  fact.  By  taking 
the  exact  reverse  of  them  we  will  be  much  nearer 
to  the  truth.  We  deny  that  immersion  was  the 
common  mode  of  baptism  in  the  apostolic  period 
of  the  Church.  The  most  patient  and  laborious 
and  impartial  examination  of  every  legitimate 
source  of  argument  has  left  us  without  one  par- 
ticle of  proof  that  the  apostolic  baptisms  were 
immersions.  We  deny  that  John's  baptisms  were 
immersions.  We  deny  that  the  three  thousand  at 
Pentecost  were  immersed.  We  deny  that  Paul, 
Cornelius,  Lydia,  or  the  Jailer  were  immersed. 
We  deny  that  there  is  any  satisfactory  evidence 


THE   HISTORY   OF   BAPTISM.  249 

that  even  the  eunuch  was  baptized  by  immersion. 
We  deny  that  there  is  a  particle  of  evidence  that 
the  apostles  ordinarily,  if  ever,  baptized  by  total 
immersion.  For  though  the  inspired  writers  speak 
of  baptism,  directly  or  indirectly,  on  almost  evciy 
page  of  the  New  Testament,  and  under  a  great 
variety  of  aspects,  they  have  not  employed  a 
single  term,  or  stated  a  single  fact,  or  used 
a  single  tigure  of  speech,  which  evinces  that  they 
either  preferi'ed  or  practiced  submersion  in  any 
case;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  have  used  lan- 
guage and  related  occurrences  which  can  by  no 
possibility  be  reconciled  with  immersion.  Indeed 
Coleman  most  positively  asserts  that  "the  rite  of 
immersion  is  an  unauthorized  assumption,  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  teachings,  the  spirit,  and  the  example 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles."  (Ancient  Christianity, 
p.  367.) 

"I  will  state,"  says  Dr.  N.  L.  Rice,  "an  import- 
ant fact,  which  cannot  be  disproved, — viz. :  No  one 
can  find  any  account  of  the  practice  of  immersion 
befoi-e  the  third  century;  and  then  we  find  trine 
immersion,  accompanied  with  various  superstitions 
and  indecencies." 

Dr.  Fuller's  '^History,"  then,  stands  contradicted 
in  its  most  vital  part.  Its  very  life-blood  is  want- 
ing. For  if  the  inspired  apostles  baptized  in  any 
manner  without  totally  immersing  the  candidate, 
no  subsequent  practice,  however  general  or  tena- 
ciously'- contended  for,  can  foist  immersion  upon  us 
as  an  injunction  of  God  or  as  a  thing  of  binding 
obligation. 

Dr.  Fuller  quotes   about  thirty  authorities   to 


250  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

prove  that  immersion  was  generally  practiced  at 
an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  But 
we  are  free  to  admit,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  none 
of  the  writers  on  our  side  of  this  controversy  have 
ever  refused  to  admit,  that  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion was  extensively  prevalent  during  the  third 
and  the  fourth  centuries.  Dr.  Fuller's  authorities 
go  no  further  than  this  admission.  Not  one  of 
them  says  that  immersion  was  specifically  ap- 
pointed by  the  Lord,  or  that  the  Christians  of  the 
periods  referred  to  ever  regarded  immersion  as 
the  only  mode  of  baptism  authorized  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles;  and  fourteen  of  these  very  authors, 
and  in  the  very  passages  quoted,  tell  us  expressly  that 

THERE   WERE   ALWAYS   EXCEPTIONS   TO  THE  GENERAL 

PRACTICE,  and  that  there  never  was  a  time  when 
persons  were  not  otherwise  baptized  than  by  immersion. 
Not  one  of  them  speaks  of  immersion  as  essential 
to  the  validity  of  baptism,  or  says  that  those  of 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries  who  ordinarily 
practiced  immersion  ever  regarded  it  as  indis- 
pensable to  the  integrity  of  this  sacrament.  And 
Dr.  Pond  (pp.  42-50)  has  proven,  beyond  the 
power  of  successful  contradiction,  that  immersion 
was  never  considered  as  essential  to  baptism  until 
the  rise  of  Dr.  Howell's  "Baptist  Fathers" — the 
Anabaptists  of  Germany — in  the  period  imme- 
diately following  the  Eeformation. 

Coleman,  who  has  made  so  many  concessions  to 
Baptists,  has  justly  said  that  the  administration 
of  baptism  by  immersion  was  the  first  departure 
from  the  teaching  and  example  of  the  apostles  on 
this  subject;  that  it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 


THE    mSTOUY   OP   BAPTISM.  251 

Christian  dispensation  to  give  such  importance  to 
merelj'  an  outward  rite;  and  that  it  is  altogether 
a  Jewish  rather  than  a  Christian  idea,  and  indi- 
cates an  origin  and  a  spirit  foreign  to  that  of  the 
ordinances  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  (Ancient 
Christianity  Exemplified,  p.  367.)  Neither  is  it 
diflScult  to  account  for  this  early  departure  from 
apostolic  practice.  Christianity  began  in  the 
warm  regions  of  the  East,  and  in  the  midst  of  a 
people  whose  climate,  habits,  costume,  and  mode 
of  life  were  all  adapted  to  bathing;  and  nothing 
could  have  been  more  natural  than  the  use  of  the 
bath  as  a  mode  of  religious  purifying  on  occasions 
otherwise  convenient.  This  certainly  was  suffi- 
cient to  begin  the  practice  of  immersion  in  bap- 
tism. This  practice,  once  introduced,  soon  acquired 
strength  from  one  of  the  primitive  heathen  signi- 
fications of  the  word  baptizo,  and  from  false  inter- 
pretations of  Eom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12.  In 
addition  to  this,  as  Dr.  Fuller  himself  remarks, 
"even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  we  find  corrup- 
tions insinuating  themselves;  and  very  soon  after 
the  time  of  the  apostles  all  manner  of  innovations 
and  abuses  began  to  creep  in."  (P.  91.)  Pre-eminent 
among  these  abuses  was  that  superstition  from 
which  Papacy  took  its  origin,  the  undue  reverence 
for  external  forms.  "In  all  ages,  the  spirit  of  will- 
worship,  the  universal  concomitant  of  human 
nature,  has  busied  itself  in  rendering  more  operose 
and  cumbersome  the  simple  rites  of  our  holy  faith. 
When  Christ  proposes  to  wash  the  feet,  this  spirit 
is  sure  to  exclaim,  'Lord,  not  my  feet  only,  but 
also  my  hands  and  my  head.' "    And  amid  those 


252  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

deep-rooted  tendencies  to  formalism  and  super- 
stition, what  was  there  to  avert  from  the  Church 
a  surrender  of  herself  to  what  fanaticism  and 
superstition  would  regard  as  the  largest  and  most 
effectual  mode  of  administering  an  ordinance  in 
which  so  much  was  supposed  to  be  involved  both 
of  emblematical  import  and  of  sanctifying  power? 
(See  Beecher  on  Baptism,  sec.  23.) 

But,  amid  the  prevailing  departure  from  apos- 
tolic example  which  characterized  the  Church  in 
the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  centuries,  the  validity 
of  baptism  performed  by  affusion  or  sprinkling 
alone  was  never  denied  by  the  Church.  It  was 
admitted  to  be  true  baptism.  It  matters  not 
whether  the  instances  of  baptism  by  affusion  were 
many  or  few.  One  acknowledged  instance  is  as 
much  and  as  really  an  admission  of  the  fact  as 
ten.  As  remarked  by  Professor  Wilson,  the  ques- 
tion between  us  and  our  opponents  in  the  appeal 
to  the  Fathers  is,  Do  these  venerable  Avitnesses 
testify  or  not  that  there  can  be  baptism  where 
there  is  no  immersion f  If  we  can  produce  from 
their  writings  one  imexceptionable  instance  of  a 
rite  acknowledged  to  be  baptism,  though  admin- 
istered without  immersion,  judgment  on  the 
appeal  must  necessarily  go  in  our  favor.  Let  the 
Fathers,  in  a  solitary  case,  call  him  on  whom  the 
symbolic  water  has  been  poured  a  baptized  man, 
and  they  stand  committed  irrevocably  and  forever 
against  the  modern  doctrine  that  "baptism  is 
immersion  and  nothing  else."  Are  there  any  evi- 
dences, then,  that  the  Fathers  baptized  without 
immersion?     There  are. 


THE   HISTORY    OP   BAPTISM.  253 

Cyprian,  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  a.d.  258, 
has  left  us  a  formal  discussion  upon  the  propriety 
of  baptizing  by  affusion,  in  which  he  argues  that 
baptisms  thus  performed  are  valid,  perfect,  and 

JUST  AS  acceptable  TO  GOD  AS  ANY  OTHER.   (See 

his  sixty-ninth  epistle.) 

St.  Lawrence,  the  cotemporary  of  Cyprian,  bap- 
tized Eomanus,  a  soldier,  with  a  pitcher  of  water, 
and  one  Lucillus,  b^^  pouring  loater  on  his  head. 

At  a  period  still  earlier,  Novatian,  a  converted 
heathen  philosopher,  was  baptized  by  affusion.  The 
writer  quoted  by  Eusebius,  from  whom  we  have 
the  account  of  the  transaction,  does  not  hesitate 
to  call  it  baptism.  (Eccles.  Hist.  vi.  43.) 

Constantino  the  Great  was  baptized  by  affusion 
in  337.  Clodovius,  King  of  the  Franks,  was  bap- 
tized by  affusion  in  499.  Argilufus,  the  King,  and 
Theolinda,  the  Queen  of  the  Longobards,  were 
baptized  by  affusion  in  591.  Gennadius  of  Mar- 
seilles in  490  said  that  the  baptized  person  is 
either  sprinkled  or  immersed 

Hilaiy  on  1  Tim.  iii.  12,  13,  as  quoted  by  Dr. 
Beecher,  says,  "non  desunt  qui  prope  quotidie  bapti- 
zentur  cegri," — there  are  not  ivanting,  almost  daily, 
sick  persons  toho  are  to  he  baptized.  Sick  persons 
were  baptized  without  immersion.  It  was  done 
mostly  by  affusion.  Emperors  were  baptized  in 
this  way;  and  yet  formal  histories  in  the  Greek 
tongue  recorded  it  as  baptism.  Theodosius  the 
Great  was  thus  baptized  by  Ambrose  in  his  last 
sickness.  Basil  says  that  people  were  often  bap- 
tized when  they  could  neither  speak,  stand,  nor 
confess  their  sins,  and  that  it  was  done  without 

22 


254  THE    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

immersing  them.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  speaks  of 
the  baptism  of  the  sick  without  immersion,  and 
calls  it  haptisma.  "Did  the  Greeks  proclaim  a 
falsehood  in  their  own  tongue?  Did  they  declare 
before  heaven  and  earth  that  a  man  was  immersed, 
when  every  man,  woman,  and  child  knew  that  he 
was  not?  Yea,  did  they  declare  it  when  out  of 
their  own  mouths  they  could  be  convicted  of  false- 
hood? for  they  themselves  declare  that  he  was 
not."  Yet  they  assert  that  he  was  baptized.  (See 
Beecher  on  Baptism,  sec.  57.) 

Tertullian,  born  150,  speaks  of  the  "aspersion  of 
water"  in  connection  with  penitence  and  baptism, 
so  as  to  leave  us  to  infer  that  baptizing  by 
affusion  was  common  in  his  day,  and  not  other- 
wise esteemed  than  as  a  valid  mode  of  administer- 
ing this  ordinance.  {De  Penitent,  cap.  6.)  In  the 
catacomb  of  Pontianus,  out  of  the  gate  Portese  at 
Eome,  an  ancient  baptistery,  which  antiquarians 
upon  clear  and  decisive  grounds  have  dated  back 
to  the  year  107,  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  It  is 
older  than  any  copy  of  the  Gospels  now  in  exist- 
ence; but  it  speaks  nothing  of  immersion.  On  the 
left  is  a  niche,  in  the  rocky  side,  where  the  adminis- 
trator stood,  fronting  a  basin  formed  by  a  slight 
excavation  in  the  floor.  On  the  farthest  wall  is  a 
representation  of  the  baptism  of  Christ,  in  which 
the  water  is  being  poured  on  his  head.  Such  a 
picture,  in  such  a  place,  could  have  been  for  no 
other  purpose  than  to  instruct  the  baptizers  and 
their  subjects  that  thus  was  the  blessed  Savior 
baptized,  and  that  thus  baptism  was  legitimately 
performed. 


THE   HISTORY   OP   BAPTISM.  255 

The  primitive  practice  of  administering  baptism 
by  affusion  has  thus  been  engraven  upon  the  rocks 
forever.  And  Venema,  Salmasius,  Eusebius,  Baro- 
nius,  Bingham,  Neander,  Winer,  Gieseler,  Cole- 
man, and  all  the  best  authorities  tell  us  that  in 
the  case  of  sickness,  or  when  water  was  not  easily 
procured,  or  when  the  baptismal  font  was  too 
small,  or  when  other  considerations  of  convenience 
or  climate  rendered  immersion  difficult  or  im- 
proper, the  patristic  Church  always  held  affusion 
to  be  a  valid  mode  of  baptism,  and  regarded  it  as 
profanity  and  sin  to  rebaptize  any  who  had  re- 
ceived this  ordinance  in  that  manner.  Cyprian 
says,  "  If  any  think  that  they  have  obtained  no- 
thing, but  are  still  empty  and  void,  in  that  they 
have  only  been  affused  with  sanctifying  water,  they 
must  not  be  deceived,  and  so,  if  they  escape  the 
ills  of  their  sickness  and  recover,  be  rebaptized;"  as 
that  would  be  to  "  question  the  verity  of  faith  and 
to  deny  baptism  its  proper  majesty  and  sanctity." 
Would  to  God  that  our  Baptist  friends  were  as 
thoughtful  and  reverent  toward  God's  appoint- 
ment in  this  respect  as  Cyprian!  It  would  do 
away  with  many  a  solemn  farce  and  save  un- 
suspecting people  from  profane  sacrilege.  It  is 
true  that  it  was  held  to  be  improper  for  such  as 
first  applied  for  baptism  in  the  extremity  of  sick- 
ness afterward  to  be  promoted  to  high  official 
positions;  but  not  because  the  ordinary  mode  of 
baptizing  clinics  was  esteemed  in  any  way  im- 
perfect, as  the  Baptists  insinuate.  We  have  the 
express  testimony  of  Cyprian  and  others  that 
"  the  sprinkling  of  water  has  like  force  with  wash- 


256  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

ing  and  holds  good,"  and  that  it  neither  abridges 
the  ordinance  itself  nor  curtails  the  spiritual  bene- 
fits with  -svhich  it  is  associated.  The  only  reason 
"why  those  baptized  in  sickness  were  debarred  from 
official  honors  is  that  assigned  by  Rufinus,  Bing- 
ham, and  others, — that  the  postponement  of  bap- 
tism to  such  an  hour  argued  a  great  want  of 
spiritual  sensibility  and  showed  an  absence  of 
that  voluntary,  cheerful,  and  unconstrained  sur- 
render to  Christ  which  ought  to  characterize  high 
officers  in  the  Church.  This  is  fully  set  forth  by 
the  Council  of  Neocesarea,  which  said,  "  He  that 
is  baptized  when  he  is  sick  ought  not  to  be  made 
a  priest  (for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is  not  volun- 
tary, but  constrained)  unless  his  diligence  and  faith 
do  prove  commendable." 

It  is,  therefore,  a  fact  that  the  Fathers  of 
the  third,  foui-th,  and  fifth  centuries,  though  very 
much  given  to  administer  baptism  by  immersion, 
really  did  in  many  instances,  and  continually,  ad- 
minister this  sacrament  to  certain  classes  without 
immersion  and  by  simple  afi'usion,  and  that  it  was 
uniformly  and  always  held  to  be  true  and  valid 
baptism,  which  it  was  a  sin  to  think  of  repudiating 
or  to  treat  as  not  Christian  baptism.  Does  not 
this  prove  and  demonstrate  forever  that  the  Bap- 
tists do  but  quote  their  own  condemnation  by 
appealing  to  patristic  practice?  Though  they  com- 
monly immersed,  they  found  adequate  Christian 
baptism  where  there  was  no  immersion :  there- 
fore, baptism  with  them  was  not  sheer  immersion 
and  nothing  else. 

And  what  is  exceedingly  remarkable   in   this 


TUE    HISTORY   OF   BAPTISM.  257 

connection,  though  these  ancient  Christians  gener- 
ally baptized  by  immersion,  we  know  of  no  in- 
stance— and,  with  all  the  searching  of  our  indus- 
trious Baptist  writers,  there  has  not  come  to  light 
one  single  instance — in  which  any  one  of  them, 
attempted  to  sustain  or  defend  their  practice  by 
reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  or  to  the 
practice  of  the  apostles.  Upon  this  point  we  will 
give  an  extract  from  the  learned  Greville  Ewing : 
— "That,  in  the  days  when  Churches  in  every 
nation  were  running  the  race  of  superstitious 
observance,  and  vying  with  one  another  who 
should  be  readiest  to  adopt  every  new  clerical  and 
monkish  device,  the  Greeks  speedily  embraced  the 
method  of  baptism  by  immersion,  is  matter  of 
undoubted  notoriety.  But  that  they  either  prac- 
ticed this  method  from  the  beginning,  or,  even 
when  they  embraced  it,  alleged  as  their  reason 
the  meaning  of  the  word  Baptism,  there  is  no 
evidence  which  I  have  been  able  to  discovei*.  I 
have  looked  in  vain  for  it  into  all  the  earliest 
Greek  Fathers  to  which  I  have  had  access;  and, 
so  far  as  my  acquaintance  with  the  Baptist  writers 
extends,  I  must  say  that  they  are  on  this  point 
remarkably  barren.  Mr.  Eobinson  satisfies  him- 
self with  making  the  bare  assertion  without  giving 
a  single  reference  in  support  of  it.  Dr.  Eyiand, 
who  has  given  so  many  quotations  from  Jewish 
and  heathen  writers,  confines  himself  to  three 
from  the  Greek  Fathers.  Two  of  these  are 
brought  to  prove  what  we  have  admitted, — that 
baptizo  signifies  to  sink  and  be  drowned;  but  they 
have  no  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
22* 


258  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

and  they  are  so  vaguely  quoted  that  it  is  imposs-ible 
to  find  the  passages."  (P.  141.)  *'  The  idea  of  im- 
mersion in  baptism  seems  to  have  arisen  among 
the  Jjatin  (not  Greek)  Fathers  of  Africa;  and  that 
not  from  their  opinion  of  the  meaning  of  the 
original  words  of  the  institution,  but  from  their 
unwarrantable  zeal  for  improving  on  the  simplicity 
of  that  and  of  all  the  other  institutions  of  Christi- 
anity." (P.  84.) 

It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that  there  arose  a 
sect  in  the  fourth  century,  called  the  Eunomians, 
which  embraced  men  as  distinguished  for  learning 
and  penetration  as  any  who  lived  in  that  period, 
who  denounced  the  custom  of  immersing  candi- 
dates for  baptism  as  an  unwarrantable  departure 
from  the  primitive  mode  of  administering  this 
ordinance,  and  insisted  that  baptism  was  only 
rightly  performed  by  wetting  the  head  and 
shoulders. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  that  when  the  early 
Christians  immersed  their  subjects  they  immersed 
them  in  perfect  nakedness.  Whether  male  or 
female,  old  or  young,  immersion  was  never  per- 
formed unless  the  candidate  had  first  been  divested 
of  every  particle  of  clothing.  This  is  a  fact, 
established  upon  the  very  best  authority  and 
admitted  by  Baptists  themselves.  It  cannot  be 
successfully  denied.  And  immersion  for  Christian 
baptism  has  no  records  in  history  Avhich  are  not 
inseparably  connected  with  the  custom  of  bringing 
people  to  baptism  as  naked  as  they  came  into  the 
world.  This  one  fact,  with  its  indecency,  ought 
to  be  proof  enough  that  immersion  did  not  origin- 


THE  HI8T0BY   OP   BAPTISM.  259 

ate  in  the  purity  of  scriptural  ordinances,  but  in 
the  rudeness  of  growing  superstition.  It  arose  at 
a  time  when  a  barbarous  but  ambitious  clergy 
presumed  to  enjoin  submission  to  whatever  their 
wild  imaginations  might  suggest  for  introduction. 
The  fact  is  that  this  indecent  undressing  for  bap- 
tism had  a  foundation  about  as  respectable,  as 
well  as  an  antiquity  as  great,  as  the  custom  of 
immersion  itself.  If  immersion  in  water  could  set 
forth  the  death  and  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  the  unclothing  of  the  person  baptized  did 
much  better  set  forth  the  putting  off  of  the  body 
of  sin  in  order  to  put  on  the  new  man,  which 
is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.  So 
that,  if  the  common  practice  of  the  Fathers  is  of 
any  value  in  proving  what  is  essential  to  baptism, 
it  proves  equally  that  this  total  divesture  is  just 
as  essential  as  the  total  immersion. 

We  here  also  mention  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
Christian  society  now  in  existence  which  dates  back 
to  the  remotest  Christian  antiquity,  and  so  far  re- 
moved from  the  common  world  as  to  have  felt  little 
of  the  conflicts  of  opinion  or  of  the  operations  of 
ambition,  which  have  made  such  sad  havoc  with 
larger  communities  and  interests, — to  a  community 
of  whom  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  they  have 
retained  the  practices  derived  from  their  forefathers 
much  more  punctiliously  than  the  perturbed  nations 
of  Christendom  at  large.  We  refer  to  the  Syrian 
Christians  in  India.  Cosmos  Indicopleustes  found 
them  there  in  a.d.  540,  a  certain  Theophilus  in  356, 
and  mention  is  made  of  one  of  their  bishops  as 
early  as  180.    Good  authority  says  that  they  were 


2(50  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

first  converted  by  the  personal  labors  of  some  of 
the  apostles  in  the  very  region  they  still  inhabit. 
Mr.  Newell,  an  American  missionary,  visited  them 
in  1814.  He  says,  "I  made  particular  inquiry 
respecting  the  mode  of  baptism.  I  found  it  was 
AFFUSION.  Eespecting  the  subjects  of  baptism  I 
made  no  inquiry,  as  I  supposed  it  was  a  matter 
of  notoriety  that  the  Syrians  are  Pedobaptists. 
Bro.  Hall,  who  conversed  with  those  same  priests 
when  he  was  at  Cochin,  understood  that  children 
were  baptized." 

"  The  History  of  Baptism"  furnishes  no  suj^port 
for  the  cause  of  immersionist  philology. 


CHAPTEE  XVIII. 

THE   PEACTICE   OF   THE  GREEK   CHURCH. 

Our  Baptist  friends  are  very  fond  of  referring  to 
the  practice  of  the  so-called  Greek  Church  upon 
this  subject.  They  also  manage  to  present  the 
case  so  as  to  take  advantage  of  the  ignorance  of 
many  people  and  persuade  them  that  such  an 
appeal  is  a  complete  and  unanswerable  settlement 
of  the  whole  controversy. 

Mr.  Eobinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  chap- 
ter second,  thus  presents  the  matter: — ''The  word 
is-  confessedly  Greek;  and  native  Greeks  must 
understand  their  own  language  better  than  foreign- 
ers; and  they  have  always  understood  the  wox-d 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE  GREEK   CHUllCH.        261 

baptism  to  signify  dipping;  and,  therefore,  from 
their  first  embracing  Christianity  to  this  day,  they 
have  always  baj)tized,  and  do  yet  baptize,  by  im- 
mersion. This  is  an  authority  for  the  meaning  of 
the  word  baptize  infinitely  preferable  to  that  of 
European  lexicographers;  so  that  a  man  who  is 
obliged  to  trust  human  testimony,  and  baptizes  by 
immersion  because  the  Greeks  do,  understands  a 
Greek  word  exactly  as  the  Greeks  themselves 
understand  it :  and  in  this  case  the  Greeks  are 
unexceptionable  guides." 

All  this  appears  exceedingly  plausible.  Mr. 
Ewing  says  he  has  no  doubt  it  has  caused  the 
immersion  of  thousands.  Nay,  if  it  were  true,  it 
would  put  other  nations  in  the  ridiculous  attitude 
of  undertaking  to  dispute  with  the  Greeks  the 
meaning  of  their  own  language.  We  shall  show 
presently  that  the  whole  thing  is  apocryphal. 

Dr.  Fuller  presents  the  case  in  these  words : — 
''  In  inquiring  into  the  imj)ort  of  a  Greek  word, 
the  following  questions  must  at  once  suggest  them- 
selves to  the  mind  of  every  man : — Is  the  Greek 
language  now  spoken  by  any  nation?  If  it  be, 
why  not  refer  the  point  to  them,  since  they  must 
know  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  ?  Now, 
the  Greek  language  is  still  essentially  a  living 
language.  The  word  baptizo  is  still  used  by  the 
Greeks,  and  they  mock  to  utter  scorn  the  absurdity 
of  supposing  that  it  means  sprinkle  or  pour.  They 
employ  terms  of  contempt  for  those  practices,  and 
always  immerse  any  members  who  join  their 
Churches  from  other  Churches  where  they  have 


262  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

only  received  sprinkling  or  pouring.     This  point 
is  conceded  by  all."  (Pp.  87,  88.) 

To  the  illiterate  and  unsuspecting,  this  too  would 
seem  like  a  just  and  final  disposition  of  the  whole 
controversy.  Many,  no  doubt,  think  that  it  is 
quite  enough  to  settle  any  one's  mind  in  favor  of 
immersionism.  But  "thereby  hangs  a  tale,"  which 
remains  to  be  told,  and  the  Baptist  logic  on  this 
point  vanishes  forever.     It  is  mere  sophistry. 

1.  Modern  Greek  is  not  the  ancient  Greek, — 
very  little,  if  any,  more  than  Italian  is  like  ancient 
Latin.     This  is  a  fact  which  no  scholar  will  deny. 

2.  The  great  body  of  the  so-called  Greek  Church 
does  not  speak  Greek  at  all,  and  never  has  spoken 
Greek,  and  is  in  no  way  connected  with  Greek 
ANCESTRY.  The  head  and  trunk  of  the  so-called 
Greek  Church  is  the  Russian  Empire ;  and  out  of 
a  population  of  sixty-seven  millions  composing  that 
empire,  not  four  millions  are  of  Greek  extraction; 
and  not  the  one-tenth  of  those  know  any  thing  about 
Greek ! 

3.  It  is  not  the  fact  that  the  Greek  Christians 
have  "always  undei-stood  the  word  baptism  to 
signify  dipping."  Clemens  Alexandrinus  was  a 
Greek  Christian;  and  he  applies  the  word  to  denote 
purifyings  by  wetting  the  body,  by  washing  the 
hands,  and  by  sprinkling  around  and  over  one  on 
a  couch.  Cyril  was  a  Greek  Christian;  yet  he  calls 
the  purification  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of 
the  heifer  under  the  Jewish  law  a  baptism.  Origen 
was  a  Greek  Christian;  and  he  calls  the  shedding 
of  Christ's  blood  a  baptism,  and  says  that  martyx'- 
dom  is  rightfully  called  a  baptism,  and  that  the 


THE   PRACXICE    OF  THE   GREEK   CHURCH.        263 

pouring  of  the  water  on  the  wood  and  altar  in 
Elijah's  time  was  a  baptizing  of  it.  Nicephoi'us 
was  a  Greek  Christian 3  and  he  tells  of  a  man  who 
received  the  ordinance  of  induction  into  Christ  by 
affusion,  while  lying  upon  his  bed,  and  calls  the 
transaction  baptism.  Athanasius  was  a  Greek 
Christian;  and  he  says  that  "John  was  baptized  by 
placing  his  hand  on  the  divine  head  of  his  Master." 
Zonarus  and  Balzamon  were  Greek  Christians;  and 
yet  the  occurrence  of  baptizo,  in  the  sense  of  im- 
mersion, in  a  canon  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions, 
as  they  are  called,  so  arrested  their  attention  that 
they  thought  it  necessary  to  insert  notes  to  pre- 
vent the  reader  from  mistaking  its  meaning  in  that 
place. 

Besides  these  cases,  the  native  Greek  lexicog- 
raphers, setting  themselves  to  explain  the  meaning 
of  Greek  for  the  Greeks,  and  acknowledged  and  re- 
ceived hy  the  Greeks  as  competent  interpreters  of 
their  native  tongue,  have  not  given  dip  or  immerse 
as  the  meaning  of  baptizo.  Hesychius  gives  the 
stem-word,  and  defines  it  and  all  proceeding  from 
it  by  the  one  word  antleo, — to  draw,  pump,  or  pour 
water.  Suidas  defines  baptizo  by  the  one  word 
pluno, — to  wet,  wash,  cleanse,  or  bathe  in  any  manner. 
And  Gases  defines  it  by  brecho,  louo,  antleo, — to  wet, 
wash,  draw,  or  pour  out  water. 

To  say,  then,  that  the  Greek  Church  has  "always 
understood  the  word  baptism  to  signify  dipping," 
is  a  mistake,  a  sheer  assumption,  a  positive  contra- 
diction of  the  truth.     It  is  not  so. 

4.  The  Greek  Church  adheres  most  tenaciously 
to  the  baptism  of  infants,  so  much  so  that  an  adult 


2G4  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

baptism  is  a  rare  thing  among  them.  And,  if  their 
practice  is  authority  to  fix  the  mode,  it  is  equal 
authority  to  fix  the  subject,  of  baptism.  It  is  just 
as  uniform  and  decisive  in  the  one  point  as  in  the 
other.  Either,  then,  our  Baptist  friends  must 
repudiate  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Church  prac- 
tice altogether,  or  criminate  themselves  with  de- 
linquency in  some  important  parts  of  the  baptismal 
service,  and  of  stinting  and  abrogating  God's  ordi- 
nance as  applied  to  children.  This  is  an  extremity 
to  which  they  reduce  themselves  by  this  mode  of 
argument;  and  truth  and  justice  require  that  they 
be  sternly  held  to  it. 

5.  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  the  Greek  Churches 
always  rebaptize  any  members  who  join  them 
from  other  Churches  where  they  have  received 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  Why  did  he  not  have  the 
manliness  to  state  the  true  reason?  Would  they 
admit  Dr.  Fuller,  or  any  other  Baptist,  without 
rebaptism?  He  does  not  say  they  would;  and  wo 
say,  positively,  they  would  not.  Why?  Simply 
because  they  acknowledge  no  Churches  but  their 
own,  whether  they  be  immersionist  Churches  or 
not.  The  Greek  Churches  are  episcopal,  and  admit 
no  succession,  no  authorized  ministrj'-,  but  their 
own.  They  hold  the  whole  Western  Church  as 
apostate.  They  will  allow  no  Christianity  but 
theirs.  Hence,  whoever  comes  to  join  them  must 
be  baptized  by  their  clergy  and  in  their  own  forms, 
no  matter  how  or  by  whom  he  had  been  baptized 
before.  Dr.  Fuller's  immersions  are  no  better  in 
their  eyes  than  the  sprinklings  of  the  Papists. 
They  hold  them  all  equally  invalid.      So  that  if 


THE   PKACTICE   OF   THE   GREEK   CHURCH.        205 

Greek  Church  practice  is  to  decide  the  matter, 
there  is  no  true  baptism  under  heaven  but  that 
performed  by  themselves.  Our  Baptist  brethren 
must  go  to  St.  Petersburg  for  the  genuine  succes- 
sion before  they  are  competent  to  administer  bap- 
tism as  understood  by  these  so-called  Greeks. 

6.  The  mode  of  baptism  in  the  Greek  Churches  is 
not  by  total  immersion.  Baptists  have  with  great 
confidence  asserted  that  it  is;  but,  like  many  of 
their  assertions,  it  is  without  proof  It  is  only 
upon  loose,  vague,  and  unsupported  impressions 
that  their  allegation  rests.  We  will  furnish  testi- 
mony which  proves  those  impressions  to  be  un- 
founded. "Mere  assertion  is  a  proof  only  for 
fools,"  says  a  certain  writer:  proof  is  what  wo 
want,  especially  "in  a  matter  of  such  moment  as 
obedience  to  Jesus  Christ." 

Mr.  Joseph  Huber,  a  ruling  elder  in  the  Danville 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  afterward  a  minister  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  some  forty  years  ago 
resided  among  people  of  the  Greek  Church,  and 
furnishes  the  following  statement : — 

"  I  resided  upwards  of  three  years  in  the  capital 
of  the  Grand  Seignior's  dominions,  in  a  Greek  family 
of  the  first  respectability.  During  that  time  I  was 
present  at  four  baptisms, — two  in  the  family  and  two 
in  the  immediate  neighborhood.  It  is  the  custom 
among  the  Greeks  either  to  have  their  children 
baptized  publicly  in  their  churches,  or  else  in  their 
houses;  in  which  latter  case  the  parents  invite  the 
nearest  relations  and  neighbors;  and,  after  the 
ceremony,  while  refreshments  pass  round,  the 
father  gives  to  each  person  present  a  token  of  wit- 
23 


266  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTKM   EXAMINED 

jiesship,  consisting  of  a  small  piece  of  Turkish 
money  through  which  a  hole  is  pierced  and  a  piece 
of  narrow  ribbon  inserted.  I  was  thus  invited  to 
attend  the  four  above-mentioned  baptisms:  and  I 
still  have  in  my  possession  two  tokens ;  the  other 
two  may  be  seen  in  Mrs.  McDowell's  Museum  in 
Danville.  The  company  were  all  seated  on  the 
sofas  around  the  room.  A  table  stood  in  the  middle 
with  a  basin  of  water  on  it.  The  papa  or  priest  was 
then  sent  for,  who  upon  entering  the  room  was 
received  by  the  father  of  the  infant  and  led  to  the 
baptismal  water,  which  he  consecrated  by  a  short 
prayer  and  the  sign  of  the  cross ;  then  the  mother 
presented  to  him  her  babe,  which  he  laid  on  his  left 
arm,  and,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  he  thrice  dipped  his  hand  into  the  water  and 

DROPPED    SOME    OF    IT    ON    THE   CHILD's    FOREHEAD, 

giving  it  a  name. 

"  I  may  remark  here,"  he  adds,  "  that  I  never 
heard,  during  my  stay  in  Constantinople,  of  adult 
baptisms,  nor  of  the  ordinance  being  performed  by 
immersion  in  a  single  instance.  Most  generally 
infants  are  baptized  in  the  churches.  Before  the 
altar  stands  a  tripod  holding  a  basin  of  consecrated 
water  for  baptisms." 

Here  were  native  Grreeks,  members  of  the  Greek 
Church,  "  holding  to  the  good  old  practice  of  the 
ancient  Church;"  yet  they  baptized  infants,  and 
they  did  it  by  dropping  water  upon  the  subject. 
"Can  it  be  affirmed,"  says  the  Baptist  Eecorder, 
"that  the  Greeks  did  not  understand  their  own 
language?"     But  this  is  not  all. 

The  Eev.  Pliny  Fisk,  missionary  to  Palestine 


THK   PRACTICE  OF   THE   GREEK  CHURCH.        267 

some  years  ago,  says,  "  I  went  one  morning  to  the 
Syrian  church  to  witness  a  baptism.  .  .  .  When 
ready  for  the  baptism,  the  font  was  uncovered,  and 
a  small  quantity,  first  of  warm  water  and  then  of 
cold,  was  poured  into  it.  The  child,  in  a  state  of 
perfect  nudity,  was  then  taken  by  the  bishop,  who 
held  it  in  one  hand,  while  with  the  other  he  an- 
ointed the  whole  body  with  oil.  He  then  held  the 
child  in  the  font,  its  feet  and  legs  being  in  the  water, 
and  WITH  HIS  eight  hand  he  took  up  water  and 
POURED  it  on  the  CHILD,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  (Memoir  of  Fisk, 
p.  357.) 

These  baptisms  occurred  in  the  East,  where  the 
climate  is  favorable  to  immersion.  We  can  hardly 
suppose  that  there  is  more  to  do  with  the  water 
when  we  come  north  and  west  to  St.  Petersburg. 
Nay,  Dr.  B.  Kurtz,  in  his  first  tour  through  Europe 
in  1825,  says,  "  We  ourselves  once  witnessed  the  bap- 
tism of  an  infant  in  the  great  cathedral  of  St.  Peters- 
burg, BY  POURING."  And  so  Deylingius,  as  quoted 
in  Booth's  "Pedobaptism  Examined,"  says,  "The 
Greeks  at  this  day  practice  a  kind  or  affusion." 

Some  indeed  tell  us  that  the  Greek  Church 
totally  immerses  the  candidate  before  the  ceremony 
of  affusing  or  sprinkling  him ;  but  we  have  seen  no 
accounts  of  this  from  eye-witnesses.  We  seriously 
doubt  it.  If  it  is  so,  the  fact  might  easily  be  ascer- 
tained and  the  evidence  of  it  produced.  It  has  not 
been  forthcoming.  The  inference  is  that  it  does 
not  exist.  And,  if  it  does  exist,  it  is  no  baptism  in 
the  estimation  of  the  Greek  Church  without  being 
followed  by  the  public  application  of  water  to  the 


268  TUK    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINKU. 

subject  with  the  hand,  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  Affusion  cannot  be  separated  from 
Greek  Church  baptism. 

We  then  hold  our  Baptist  friends  down  to  their 
own  argument, — that  the  j)ractice  of  the  Greeks 
shows  their  understanding  of  the  Greek  word. 
The  practice  of  the  Greeks  at  least  includes  affusion 
or  sprinkling :  therefore  the  Greeks  understood  bap- 
Tizo  to  include  affusion  and  sprinkling. 

So  much  for  the  practice  of  the  so-called  Greek 
Church. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


developments  and   tendencies   of  the  baptist 
dogma. 

We  have  now  examined  every  point  in  Dr. 
Fuller's  ''philological  inquiry  as  to  the  meaning 
of  bapjtizo."  The  result  is  before  the  reader.  We 
do  not  deem  it  more  than  the  naked  truth  to  say 
that  we  have  found  him  contradicting  plain  facts, 
interpolating  historical  records,  giving  for  Scrip- 
ture what  is  not  in  Scripture,  perverting  authori- 
ties, wresting  inspired  language  from  its  obvious 
import,  charging  the  best  and  wisest  men  who  have 
ever  lived  with  a  spurious  Christianity,  seeking  to 
bind  down  the  glorious  blessings  of  Christ's  medi- 
ation to  a  mere  accident  of  external  ceremony, 
sending  us  back  to  the  old  heathen  to  learn 
whether  we  are  Christians  or  not,  at  every  step 


DEVELOPMENTS   OF  THE    BAPTIST   DOGMA.      269 

using  logic  whicli  is  unsound  and  making  assertions 
which  are  untenable,  denouncing  the  most  solemn 
sacraments  of  ninety-five  hundredths  of  God's 
people  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  as  super- 
stition or  profanity,  and  holding  up  a  hetero- 
geneous community  of  modern  sectarians  as  the 
only  true  Church  of  God  on  earth.  A  cause  which 
drives  its  advocate  to  such  extremities  can  never 
command  the  respect  of  candid  thinkers. 

In  six  general  arguments  we  have  shown  that 
all  the  presumptions  and  prima  facie  considerations 
in  the  case  lie  so  strong  and  heavy  against  the 
Baptist  theory  of  immersion  that  nothing  short 
of  demonstrative  proof  is  competent  to  set  them 
aside.  Such  proof  has  not  been  found  in  the  Bap- 
tist "Argument.''  Indeed,  Dr.  Carson  himself 
comes  to  what  is  equivalent  to  an  admission  that 
no  such  proof  is  to  be  found  inside  of  the  J^Tew 
Testament.  His  process  is,  first,  to  establish  im- 
mersion as  the  meaning  of  baptizo  from  classic 
Greek  authors,  and  then  to  silence  all  objections 
and  counter-arguments  drawn  from  the  Scriptures 
by  alleging  the  possibility — the  mere  possibility — 
that  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament  may  have 
BEEN  immersions.  This  is  all  that  he  pretends  to 
get  from  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject. 
Positive  proof  he  does  not  once  claim  to  find  in  the 
inspired  record.  (See  his  work  on  Baptism,  pp. 
281,  282.)  Either,  then,  the  Scriptures  are  not 
that  sufficient  guide  which  Paul  (2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17) 
claims  that  they  are,  or  the  doctrine  of  immersion- 
ists  is  not  a  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament.  Many 
may  honestly  entertain  it  and  take  it  for  the  truth 

23* 


270  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEiM   EXAMINED. 

of  God  J  but  it  is  nevertheless  wholly  unsupported 
by  the  origin  or  use  of  the  word  relied  on,  at  war 
with  the  strongest  scriptural  intimations  concern- 
ing mode  in  baptizing,  and  incongruous  with  the 
whole  tone  and  spirit  of  the  gospel.  It  is  no  part 
of  Christianity. 

Nay,  the  nature  and  tendencies  of  the  immersion- 
ist  dogma,  when  fully  seen,  present  it  in  a  light 
which  prove  it  to  be  of  other  than  divine  origin. 
The  spirit  of  Christ,  of  liberty,  of  charity,  of  good- 
ness, is  not  in  it.  It  has  its  life  and  power  in  Avhat 
is  as  unchristian  as  it  is  Pharisaic,  superstitious, 
and  sectarian. 

It  excludes  the  repenting  sick  from  the  privilege 
of  confessing  Christ  in  his  own  appointed  mark  of 
discipleship  and  sacrament  of  forgiveness. 

It  does  the  same  in  the  case  of  those  members 
of  our  race  whom  the  gospel  may  reach  in  arid 
deserts  where  it  is  difficult  to  find  water  enough 
to  sustain  life,  or  in  those  polar  realms  where 
unmitigated  winter  reigns  for  nearly  all  the  year, 
locking  up  every  stream  in  perpetual  ice,  covering 
the  surface  of  the  deep  with  solidity,  and  rendering 
the  immersion  of  a  man  in  water  the  instantaneous 
conversion  of  him  into  a  statue  of  frozen  flesh  and 
blood.  God  or  his  apostles  would  never  have 
instituted  or  made  binding  any  particular  mode 
which  could  not  be  universally  and  at  all  times 
practised. 

It  destroys  the  solemnity  and  disturbs  the  de- 
votion which  ought  to  attend  the  administration 
of  the  baptismal  sacrament,  often  converting  an 
ordinance  of  God  into  a  mere  show  for  the  amuse- 


DEVELOPMENTS   OF   THE   BAPTIST   DOGMA.      271 

ment  of  curious  people,  boys,  and  servants,  giving 
point  to  the  jests  of  the  vulgar  and  bringing  pain 
to  the  feelings  of  the  devout.  Dr.  Fuller,  with  all 
his  studied  sanctity  of  manner,  the  elegances  of 
music,  the  assistance  of  waiting  friends,  the  con- 
cealment of  the  rising  subject's  face,  the  consider- 
ate interposition  of  his  own  robed  person  to  cover 
the  sorry  retreat  of  his  candidates  from  the  pool, 
and  all  the  shields  and  graces  which  his  ingenuity 
can  throw  around  it,  cannot  deprive  immersion  of 
its  liability  to  the  charge  which  we  are  compelled, 
from  personal  observation,  to  make  upon  it. 

It  also  subverts  the  order  of  the  gospel,  exalting 
the  ritual  above  what  is  personal,  placing  the  form 
above  the  substance,  making  spiritual  qualifications 
nothing  unless  accompanied  by  submission  to  a 
mere  puncto  of  external  ceremony,  and  engrafting 
Levitical  bondage  upon  evangelical  freedom.  It 
leads  to  the  denunciation  of  the  most  solemn 
official  acts  of  the  greatest  and  most  pious  minis- 
ters that  have  ever  lived  as  profanity  and  lies  not 
to  be  respected  for  a  moment.  It  obscures  the 
vital  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith,  by  displacing 
and  supplanting  them  in  the  pulpit  and  in  the 
common  mind  by  mere  questions  of  outward 
formalities,  which  can  profit  nothing.  It  begets  a 
superstitious  regard  for  the  rite  of  baptism  itself, 
as  though  salvation  were  to  be  obtained  in  the 
water.  It  was  so  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries. 
It  is  so  now  in  the  case  of  the  Campbelhtes  and  in 
the  cases  of  very  many  individual  Baptists.  Dr. 
Fuller  himself  has  not  escaped  this  tendency  of  his 
system.     "  Saved  or  damned!"  ai-e  the  first  words 


272  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

in  his  book;  and  if  salvation  and  damnation  are 
not  associated  in  his  mind  with  submission  and 
refusal  to  go  under  the  water,  or  if  he  does  not 
in  some  way  regard  this  momentous  question  as 
involved  in  immersion,  it  is  contemptible  hypo- 
crisy, if  not  downright  profanity,  to  introduce  an 
argument  on  immersion  with  such  words,  amplified, 
too,  as  if  this  were  the  question  to  be  decided. 
Meet  a  zealous  Baptist  where  you  will,  and  im- 
mersion is  obtruded  upon  you  as  a  theme  para- 
mount to  all  others.  Kearly  every  Baptist  preacher 
w^ho  has  learned  to  decline  Ho,  and  many  a  Bap- 
tist preacher  who  knows  not  what  Ho  is,  must 
needs  write  a  book,  tract,  or  something  else  on 
immersion,  just  as  though  that  embodied  the 
essence  of  Christianity^,  or  as  if  it  were  the  ulti- 
matum of  ministerial  effort  to  hold  up  above  every 
thing  else  this  one  matter  of  simple /orm.  Stoutly 
as  it  may  be  denied, 

"  Ho,  every  mother's  son  and  daughter ! 
Here's  salvation  in  the  water !" 

are  lines  which  express  what  may  be  seen  in  the 
spirit  of  Baptist  literature,  preaching,  and  conver- 
sation,— the  fruit  of  a  deep-seated  tendency  in 
their  system  to  divert  the  mind  from  the  vital 
elements  of  saving  religion  to  a  superstitious  and 
fanatical  regard  for  an  insignificant  mode  of  per- 
forming an  outward  ceremony. 

Out  of  thirteen  of  the  publications  of  the  "South- 
ern Baptist  Publication  Society,"  including  hymn- 
books  and  rhymes  and  conversations  for  children, 
four  are  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  The  editor  of 
the  Baptist  paper  of  Baltimore  concedes  that  out 


DEVELOPMENTS   OF   THE   BAPTIST  DOGMA.       273 

of  one  hundred  and  seventy  volumes,  including 
Sabbath-scliool  books  and  biographies,  published 
by  the  "American  Baptist  Publication  Society/' 
nineteen  are  strictly  on  "the  baptismal  question," 
and  that,  out  of  two  hundred  and  seven  Tracts, 
XwQnij  are  exclusively  "'denominational"! 

Professor  Eaton,  in  a  speech  before  the  Baptist 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  April  28, 
1840,  says,  "  Never,  sir,  was  there  a  chord  struck 
that  vibrated  simultaneously  through  so  many 
Baptist  hearts  from  one  extremity  of  the  land  to 
the  other,  as  when  it  was  announced  that  the 
heathen  world  must  look  to  them  alone  for  an  unvailed 
view  of  the  glories  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  ...  A 
deep  conviction  seized  the  minds  of  almost  the 
whole  body,  that  they  were  divinely  and  peculiarly 
SET  for  the  defence  and  dissemination  of  the  gospel  as 
delivered  to  man  by  its  heavenly  Author." 

It  is  the  foster-mother  of  a  spirit  of  proselytism 
and  sectarianism,  which  is  ever  on  the  look-out  for  a 
convert  to  its  party,  creeping  insidiously  into  houses, 
and  "leading  captive  silly  women"  of  both  sexes, 
and  which  would  glory  in  draining  every  church 
and  destroying  every  congregation  in  Christendom 
which  refuses  to  bow  to  its  narrow  dictation. 

It  has  led  to  the  public  and  formal  denunciation 
of  the  great  Bible  societies  of  Britain  and  America 
— those  two  wings  of  the  Apocalyptic  angel  with 
the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  to  every  kindred, 
people,  and  tongue — as  ^^combinations  to  obscure  the 
divine  revelation." 

It  has  led  its  adherents  and  supporters  to  arro- 
gate to  themselves  the  high  distinction  of  being, 


274  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM  EXAMINED. 

of  all  Christian  people,  the  only  ones  sufficiently 
honest  and  conscientious  to  translate  intelligibly 
those  passages  of  Scripture  which  relate  to  the 
baptismal  sacrament.  Witness  the  resolution  of 
the  Baptist  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
passed  on  the  28th  of  April,  1840,  which  reads, 
"Kesolved,  That  in  the  fact  [!]  that  the  nations  of 
the  earth  must  now  look  to  the  Baptist  denomination 
ALONE  for  faithful  translations  of  the  word  of  God, 
a  responsibility  is  imposed  upon  them,  demanding 
for  its  full  discharge  an  unwonted  degree  of  union, 
of  devotion,  and  of  strenuous,  persevering  effort 
throughout  the  entire  body."  Might  not  the 
spirit  which  dictated  and  sustained  that  resolve 
take,  for  the  motto  of  its  devotions,  "God,  I  thank 
thee  that  I  am  not  as  other  men"? 

It  leads  to  the  intolerant  proscription  of  all, 
however  devout  of  heart  and  meek  in  spirit  and 
munificent  in  charity,  who  do  not  embrace  it. 

It  has  engendered  in  its  devotees  a  bigotry,  in- 
tolerance, and  self-sufficiency  which  Robert  Hall, 
though  a  Baptist,  saw,  lamented,  and  sought  to 
counteract,  as  being  the  same  in  essence  and 
equally  reprehensible  with  the  most  arrogant  and 
antichristian  assumptions  of  the  Papacy  itself. 

It  has  led,  according  to  the  testimony  of  that 
eloquent  man  of  God,  to  "glaring  instances  of 
gross  violation  as  well  of  the  dictates  of  inspiration 
as  of  the  maxims  of  Christian  antiquity, — both  of 
which,"  says  he,  "  concur  in  inculcating  the  doc- 
trine of  the  absolute  unity  of  the  Church,  and  of 
the  horrible  incongruity — I  might  almost  say  im- 
piety— of  attempting  to  establish  a  system  which 


DEVELOPMENTS  OF   THE   BAPTIST   DOGMA.      275 

represents  a  great  majority  of  its  members  as 
personally  disqualified  for  communion." 

It  falsifies  the  words  of  Jesus  that  the  gates  of 
hell  should  not  prevail  against  his  Church,  by 
assuming  grounds  which  necessarily  render  that 
Church  extinct  for  hundreds  of  years,  and  which, 
if  true,  make  it  extremely  doubtful  whether  there 
is  now  anywhere  under  the  whole  heaven  any 
such  thing  as  a  true,  legitimate,  historical  Chris- 
tian Church. 

Can  such  a  theory,  with  such  tendencies,  plead 
scriptural  warrant?  Can  the  immaculate  Son  of 
God  be  the  author  of  such  a  system  ?  Can  Heaven 
be  the  origin  of  such  doctrine?  Can  Jehovah  be 
the  parent  of  such  confusion?  To  say  so  would 
be  to  slander  the  great  God,  to  obscure  the  attri- 
butes of  his  love  and  mercy,  to  throw  discredit 
upon  his  word,  to  cast  contempt  upon  his  gospel, 
and  to  divide  his  kingdom  against  itself.  We 
cannot  believe  it.  It  is  too  much  for  the  most 
fanatical  credulity.  It  is  an  outrage  upon  com- 
mon sense.  It  is  Papal  arrogance  in  the  guise  of 
Protestant  humility.  We  pity  the  people  who 
have  suifered  themselves  to  be  imposed  on  and 
infatuated  by  it.  We  honor  and  sympathize  with 
them  as  Christians,  so  far  as  they  show  a  Chris- 
tian temper  and  walk.  Many  of  them  are  doubt- 
less good  men  and  true  and  accepted  of  God;  but 
they  are  giving  their  sanction  to  a  system  the 
bearings  of  which  are  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel  and  as  antagonistic  to  some  of  its 
clearest  dictates  as  error  is  to  truth  or  sin  to  holi- 
ness; a  system  which  leads  them  to  call  a  man  a 


276  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

minister  of  Jesus  whilst  they  denounce  all  bis 
administrations  as  invalid  and  sinful  and  seek  to 
alienate  the  people  from  him  as  a  deceiver  and 
apostate;  a  system  which  leads  them  to  flatter  a 
man  as  a  Christian  friend  with  one  breath  and 
with  the  next  deny  to  him  the  hope  of  salvation 
save  as  they  extend  it  to  the  un baptized  heathen; 
a  system  which  leads  them  at  times  to  take  a 
man  by  the  hand  as  a  fellow-disciple  of  Jesus,  and 
then  to  turn  him  away  from  the  Lord's  table  like 
a  dog. 

And  this,  we  are  to  be  told,  is  Christianity  par 
excellence, — the  religion  of  Christ  direct  from  his 
word  and  Spirit, — the  pure,  unadulterated  gospel 
of  the  blessed  God, — the  very  flower  and  perfec- 
tion of  that  economy  of  holiness,  love,  liberty,  and 
universal  brotherhood  of  which  the  holy  seers  of 
old  did  sing,  and  for  which  the  heart  of  humanity 
in  all  ages  has  been  yearning,  hoping,  and  pray- 
ing! *'0h,  tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish  it  not  in 
the  streets  of  Askelon;  lest  the  Philistines  rejoice 
and  the  daughters  of  the  uncircumcised  triumph !" 

As  we  shall  all  answer  at  the  great  day  of 
judgment,  Can  such  a  system  be  the  truth 
OF  God? 


ANALOGY — AN   INDEPENDENT  ABQUMENT.      277 


CHAPTEE  XX. 

ANALOGY — AN   INDEPENDENT   ARGUMENT. 

Before  closing  our  remarks  upon  this  part  of 
the  Baptist  controversy,  we  have  another  argu- 
ment to  present, — an  argument  from  analogy, — 
an  argument  quite  independent  of  the  preceding 
discussion,  and  so  direct,  complete  and  conclusive 
that  no  Baptist  writer,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  has 
ever  so  much  as  attempted  to  answer  it. 

We  think  that  we  have  demonstrated  that  no 
reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  doctrine  of  our 
Baptist  friends  that  "baptizo  means  immerse  and 
nothing  else."  But  we  are  now  about  to  submit 
a  mode  of  reasoning  which  has  no  need  of  that 
demonstration,  which  exempts  us  entirely  from 
the  necessity  of  replying  at  all  to  the  teachings 
of  immersionists  as  to  the  secular,  classical,  and 
common  meaning  of  the  word  in  dispute.  "We 
may  grant  that  the  Greeks  ordinarily  used  baptizo 
to  signify  immersion,  and  that  all  its  meanings  are 
properly  resolvable  into  this.  We  may  dispense 
with  entirely  and  wholly  set  aside  the  conclusions 
which  we  have  thus  far  educed;  and  yet  there  is 
a  mode  of  reasoning,  to  which  no  just  exception 
can  possibly  be  taken,  which  entirely  confounds 
the  Baptist  claim,  and  establishes  a  bulwark  of 

24 


278  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

strength  around  our  mode  of  baptism  which  ren- 
ders it  forever  invulnerable  against  all  the  immcr- 
sionist  logic  in  the  world. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that,  under  the  pres- 
ent dispensation,  Christ  has  established  two  corre- 
sponding ordinances  or  sacraments:  the  one  is 
Baptism  and  the  other  The  Lord's  Supper, — the  one 
referring  to  the  new  birth,  the  other  to  the  nur- 
ture and  nourishment  of  this  new  creature.  All 
the  essentials  of  a  positive  ordinance  or  Christian 
sacrament  appei'tain  alike  to  both.  Both  have 
Christ's  positive  command;  both  requii*e  the  use 
of  an  external,  material,  and  tangible  element; 
both  are  of  binding  and  continual  obligation ;  both 
have  the  divine  promise  of  grace  to  those  who 
attend  propei'ly  upon  them;  both  are  meant  to 
exhibit  and  apply  the  gospel  to  the  souls  of  men; 
and  both  are  equally  solemn,  sacred,  and  unalter- 
able. The  one  is  denoted  by  the  word  deipnon, 
supper;  the  other  by  the  word  baptisma,  baptism. 
Baptisma  does  not  more  describe  the  nature  or 
essential  constituents  of  the  one  than  deipnon  de- 
scribes the  other.  It  is  no  more  allowable,  then, 
for  us  to  depart  from  the  strict  meaning  of  deipnon 
in  our  celebration  of  the  Holy  Supper  than  to 
depart  from  the  strict  meaning  of  baptisma  in 
baptizing.  The  stringency  or  laxity  that  is  requi- 
site or  allowable  must  be  the  same  in  both  cases; 
for  they  are  exactly  analogous.  If  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  keep  to  the  literal  meaning  of  the  one,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  keep  to  the  literal  meaning  of 
the  other.  Liberty  in  the  one  case  presupposes 
and  implies  the  existence  of  the  right  to  exercise 


ANALOGY — AN   INDEPENDENT  ARGUMENT.      279 

the  same  liberty  in  the  other  case.  This  cannot 
be  successfully  disputed. 

Supposing,  then,  that  the  immersionists  are 
right  in  claiming  that  mode  is  implied  in  baptism, 
if  we  can  show  that  they,  in  common  with  the 
Churches  generally,  from  the  beginning  until  now, 
consider  themselves  under  no  obligation  to  keep 
to  the  plain,  literal  import  of  the  word  deipnon  in 
the  Holy  Supper,  that  fact  alone,  without  any 
other  argument,  is  a  satisfactory  and  unanswer- 
able ground  upon  which  to  claim  exemption  from 
rigid  adherence  to  the  literal  meaning  of  baptisma 
in  baptizing.  Sound  authoi'ity  in  one  case  is 
sound  authority  in  every  parallel  case. 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  deipnon?  There 
is  but  little  room  for  diversity  as  to  the  true 
answer.  It  denotes  a  full  meal,  and  that  an 
evening  meal.  All  authorities  agree  that  it  stands 
for  the  principal  meal  of  the  Greeks  and  iJomans. 
Three  names  of  meals  occur  in  the  Homeric  writ- 
ings, in  the  following  order, — ariston,  deipnon,  and 
dorpon.  "  The  Greeks  of  a  later  age  usually  par- 
took of  three  meals,  called  akratisma,  ariston,  and 
deipnon.  The  last,  which  corresponds  to  the  dor- 
pon of  the  Homeric  poems,  was  the  evening  meal,  or 
dinner ;  the  ariston  was  the  luncheon;  and  the 
akratisma,  which  answers  to  the  ariston  of  Homer, 
was  the  early  meal,  or  breakfast.  The  akratisma 
was  taken  immediately  after  rising  in  the  morn- 
ing. Next  followed  the  ariston,  or  luncheon ;  but 
the  time  at  which  it  was  taken  is  uncertain. 
Suidas  says  that  it  was  taken  about  the  third 
hour  J  that  is,  about  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning; 


280  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED- 

but  this  account  does  not  agree  with  the  state- 
ments of  other  ancient  writers.  We  may  con- 
clude, from  many  circumstances,  that  this  meal 
was  taken  about  the  middle  of  the  day,  and  an- 
swered to  the  Eoman  prandium.     The  principal 

MEAL,  HOWEVER,  WAS  THE  DEIPNON.      It  WQS  USUOlly 

taken  rather  late  in  the  day, — frequently  not  before  sun- 
set." (Smith'sAntiquities,pp.  303,  304.)  Dr.Halley 
says,  *'  Long  before  the  apostolic  age,  deipnon  had 
become  regularly  and  constantly  the  evening  meal." 
Nitzch  says  that  it  denoted  ^'the  principal  meal." 
Trench  does  the  same.  Hence,  all  great  enter- 
tainments were  called  deipna,  and  always  came  off 
at  the  latter  part  of  the  day,  or  at  night. 

The  scope  and  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament correspond  exactly  to  these  representations, 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  passages : — 

Matt,  xxiii.  6 :  '<  They  make  broad  their  phylac- 
teries, and  enlarge  the  borders  of  their  garments, 
and  love  the  uppermost  rooms  at  feasts,  [deipnois, 
suppers.y 

Mark  vi.  21:  "Herod  on  his  birthday  made  a 
supper  [deipnon']  to  his  lords,  high  captains,  and 
chief  estates  of  Galilee." 

Mark  xii.  39 :  "  The  scribes  love  the  uppermost 
rooms  at  feasts  [deipnois,  suppers.J' 

Luke  xiv.  12:  "When  thou  makest  a  dinner 
[ariston']  or  a  supper  [deipnon'],  call  not  thy  friends; 
.  .  .  but  when  thou  makest  a  feast,"  &c. 

Luke  xiv.  16:  "A  certain  man  made  a  great 
supper  [deipnon]  and  bade  many."  (See  also  verses 
17,  24,  and  chapter  xx.  46.) 

John  xii.  2:  "There  they  made   him  a  supper 


ANALOGY AN    INDEPENDENT    ARGUMENT.       281 

[deipnori],  and  Martha  served."  (See  also  chapters 
xiii.  2,  4,  and  xxi.  20,  where  the  word  occurs  in 
the  same  sense.) 

We  might  further  illustrate  this  meaning  from 
the  Septuagint,  in  such  passages  as  Daniel  v.  1 : — 
"Belshazzar  the  king  made  a  great  feast  [devpnon, 
supper]  to  a  thousand  of  his  lords;"  but  it  is  un- 
necessary. Deipnon  means  a  full  meal,  a  banquet, 
a  plentiful  supper,  an  ample  repast,  the  principal 

AND    MOST    abundant    MEAL    OP    THE     DAY,     wMch 

occurred  in  the  evening,  between  mid-day  and  midnight. 
Dr.  Fuller  himself  says,  that  Deipnon  was,  among 
the  ancients,  the  most  social  and  convivial  of  all 
their  repasts,"  and  that  "the  word  means  A  ban- 
quet, A  FEAST."   (P.  226.) 

It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  the  Lord's  Supper, 
or  deipnon,  was  instituted  and  first  celebrated  at 
night.  !N"ot  only  the  meaning  of  the  word  which 
was  chosen  to  describe  it,  but  the  very  hour  of  its 
appointment  and  first  observance,  connect  the 
Lord's  Supper  with  the  evening  and  the  close  of 
the  day. 

According  to  the'  plain,  evident,  and  well-estab- 
lished meaning  of  words,  therefore,  and  sustained 
by  circumstances,  two  things  would  be  essential  to 
the  sacramental  deipnon.  First,  it  must  be  a  full 
and  plenteous  meal;  and,  second,  it  must  be  taken  in 
the  evening.  A  fragment  of  bread  a  half-inch  square, 
and  a  sip  of  wine  that  would  scarcely  fill  a  tea-spoon, 
is  not  a  deipnon,  as  the  Greeks  used  that  word,  any 
more  than  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water  on  a 
man's  face  is  an  immersion  of  him.  Neither  do 
we  eat  our  suppers  in  the  morning.     It  is  as  great 

24* 


282  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

a  contradiction  in  terms  and  confusion  of  ideas  to 
speak  of  supping  in  the  morning  as  to  speak  of 
plunging  a  man  by  pouring  water  on  him. 

Suppose,  then,  that  we  were  to  set  ourselves  to 
reason  on  the  word  deipnon  as  the  immersionists 
reason  on  the  word  baptisma:  we  might  make  out 
a  case  to  convict  the  Christian  world  in  all  ages 
of  disobedience  to  a  plain  command  of  Christ. 
They  say  that  baptisma  means  immersion  and 
nothing  else;  we  say  that  still  more  certainly  does 
deipnon  mean  an  evening  repast.  If  the  one  denotes 
mode,  the  other  with  more  certainty  denotes  time. 
They  insist  that  baptisma  includes  in  itself  a  total 
covering  up  of  the  whole  body  in  water;  we  say, 
with  far  more  reason  and  confidence,  that  deipnon 
includes  in  itself  the  provision  and  participation 
of  the  largest  and  fullest  meal.  If  the  one  requires 
water  enough  to  cover  a  man,  the  other,  with 
greater  certainty,  requires  food  enough  to  fill  a 
ma7i  and  as  many  as  are  to  partake  of  it.  The 
words  chosen  in  both  are  the  words  of  God,  and 
he  knew  what  he  meant  by  them.  And  if  the 
common  Greek  usage  of  baptisma  was  to  denote 
immersion,  and  we  are  to  get  God's  meaning  in 
that  word  from  common  Greek  usage,  the  common 
Greek  usage  of  deipnon  must  also  give  us  the  idea 
attached  to  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

What,  then,  has  been  the  universal  practice  of 
the  Church  with  regard  to  the  sacramental  deipnon '( 
Have  there  ever  been  any  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians who  believed,  or  held  it  as  necessary  to  a  right 
communion,  that  it  should  be  celebrated  in  the  even- 
ing or  that  it  should  be  made  a  full  meal  ?  All  parties 


ANALOGY — AN    INDEPENDENT   ARGUMENT.        283 

— Baptists  with  all  others — are  continually  cele- 
brating the  deipnon  of  the  Savior  in  the  morning; 
and  none  of  them  provide  for  it  more  than  a  bit  of 
bread  and  a  sip  of  wine  for  each  communicant.  ■  We 
do  not  find  fault  with  this.  We  believe  that  it 
adequately  fulfills  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  and  of 
Jesus  on  the  subject.  But,  arguing  as  our  modern 
immersionists,  Ave  might  say,  with  holy  indig- 
nation, What  right  have  men  to  trample  upon  and 
ignore  the  time  selected  by  the  Savior  in  the  insti- 
tution of  this  sacrament  and  ingrained  in  the 
name  given  to  it  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  ? 
What  authority  have  they  to  make  a  pitiable  abor- 
tion of  a  breakfast  or  dinner  of  what,  according  to 
the  plain  common  import  of  God's  word,  is  to  be 
an  abundant  and  plentiful  supper?  If  we  cannot 
dispense  with  mode  in  baptism,  we  cannot  dispense 
with  time  in  its  corresponding  sacrament.  If  we 
cannot  have  baptism  without  immersion,  for  the 
same  alleged  reason  we  cannot  have  a  supper  in 
the  morning  or  a  deipnon  for  a  hundred  guests 
without  a  large  supply  of  wine  and  bread.  If  time 
and  quantity  are  nothing  in  the  one  sacrament,  the 
name  and  circumstances  of  which  call  for  it,  mode 
and  quantity  are  nothing  in  the  other  sacrament, 
the  name  and  circumstances  of  which  demand  it 
still  less. 

Assuming,  then,  that  mode  is  invariably  and 
essentially  implied  in  the  literal  sense  of  baptisma, 
which  we  have  abundantly  proven  to  be  otherwise, 
the  sin  of  those  who  practice  sprinkling,  wetting, 
or  affusion  in  baptism  consists  simply  in  regarding 
mode  as  one  of  the  accidents  or  circumstantials  iu 


284  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

this  ordinance.  This  is  all.  And,  if  wo  are  to 
suffer  for  this,  we  have  a  right  to  demand,  with  the 
Psalmist,  ''Let  the  righteous  smite  us;  it  shall  be  a 
kindness:  and  let  him  reprove  us;  it  shall  be  an 
excellent  oil,  which  shall  not  break  our  heads." 
If  our  iniquity  in  this  thing  is  to  be  punished  with 
death,  then  let  our  Baptist  friends  consider  the 
Savior's  challenge  : — "He  that  is  ivithout  sin  among 
you,  let  him  cast  the  first  stone."  If  they  will  insist 
that  we  distort  and  violate  an  ordinance  of  Christ 
by  declining  to  be  immersed  or  to  immerse,  wo 
take  the  liberty  of  "holding  the  mirror  up  to 
nature,"  that  their  flagrant  inconsistency  may  be 
seen.  They  have  expunged  the  elements  of  time 
and  quantity  from  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  celebrated  in  their  societies,  and  think 
they  have  done  no  violence  to  literal  exposition 
and  the  plain  meaning  of  words  which  certainly 
contain  them ;  and  it  will  not  answer  for  them  now 
to  turn  about  and  condemn  and  excommunicate  us 
for  thinking  it  non-essential  as  to  how  the  water 
is  applied  in  holy  baptism.  Let  them  ponder  first 
those  searching  words  of  Jesus  : — "  Whj^  beholdest 
thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye,  but 
considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye  ? 
Or  how  wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother,  Let  me  pull 
out  the  mote  out  of  thine  eye;  and,  behold,  a  beam 
is  in  thine  own  eye  ?  Thou  hypocrite !  first  cast  out 
the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and  then  thou  shalt 
see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's 
eye." 

The  immersionist  attempts  to  defend  the  peculi- 
arity of  his  procedure  by  asserting  that  mode  is 


ANALOGY — AN   INDEPENDENT   ARGUMENT.      285 

inseparable  from  baptism  and  therefore  belongs 
essentially  to  the  ordinance.  We  say  that  his 
argument  criminates  himself,  and,  by  proving  too 
much,  recoils  upon  his  own  head.  Time  and  abun- 
dance of  provisions  are  as  necessarily  included  in 
deipnon  as  it  is  possible  for  mode  to  be  in  baptisma; 
and  when  he  gives  us  the  warrant  for  his  liberty 
to  eject  time  from  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  for  his 
substitution  of  a  little  fragment  of  bread  and  a 
little  sip  of  wine  for  a  full  meal,  we  shall  be  pre- 
pared to  establish  our  right  to  dispense  with  his 
favorite  mode  in  the  administration  of  baptism. 
Until  he  does  this,  all  his  philological  reasonings 
on  the  word  baptism  are  completely  nullified,  and, 
in  all  justice,  forever  silent. 

We  need  no  other  argument.  This  in  itself 
sufficiently  disposes  of  the  question.  It  winds  up 
the  whole  controversy  into  a  nutshell.  It  puts 
the  dispute  in  a  light  in  which  there  is  no  room 
for  philological  mystification  and  which  may  easil}'' 
be  understood.  It  concedes  the  whole  Baptist 
assumption,  and  yet  completely  confutes  the  in- 
ference founded  upon  it  and  leaves  the  cause  of 
immersionism  in  inextricable  embarrassments.  It 
settles  the  case.  It  is  an  unanswered  and  un- 
answerable ARGUMENT. 

AVith  these  observations  we  close  our  discussion 
upon  mode. 


286  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 


CHAPTEE  XXI. 

INFANT   BAPTISM   NO    SIN. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  point  of  diiference 
between  immersionists  and  the  Church  general. 
It  relates  to  pedohaptism,  or  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants and  little  children. 

This  is  an  important  department  of  this  con- 
troversy, presenting  a  question  which  deserves  to 
be  carefully  and  dispassionately  considered.  If 
the  position  assumed  by  our  iramersionist  friends 
be  correct,  a  very  great  revolution  in  the  views 
and  practices  of  Christians  generally  is  imperi- 
ously demanded.  There  is  serious  error  on  the 
one  side  or  the  other.  And,  as  we  have  proposed 
to  ourselves  the  task  of  giving  a  resume  of  the 
whole  Baptist  controversy,  it  remains  for  us  to 
enter  somewhat  upon  this  point  also. 

The  first  thing  we  notice  in  our  opponents  with 
reference. to  the  baptism  of  infants  is  the  whole- 
sale and  unqualified  manner  in  which  they  con- 
demn and  denounce  it.  They  show  no  hesitation 
at  all  in  declaring  it  one  of  the  most  dreadful  and 
reprehensible  abominations  that  has  ever  aflSicted 
the  human  race. 

Mr.  Kinghorn  regards  it  as  ^'the  very  precursor 
of  Antichrist,  the  inlet  of  almost  every  abomination." 


INFANT    BAPTISM   NO    SIN.  287 

Dr.  Carson  declares  it  to  be  "  the  fortress  of  the 
man  of  sin, — the  very  spirit  of  Antichrist." 

Dr.  Ide  execrates  it  as  "  that  old  xipas-tree  which 
with  its  death-distilling  branches — popery,  prelacy, 
and  skepticism — has  for  fourteen  centuries  shaded 
and  blasted  the  world." 

Dr.  Howell  declaims  against  it  as  "  an  evil  which 
despoils  the  Church  and  subverts  the  doctrine  of 
infant  salvation, — which  is  the  grand  foundation 
of  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  the  source  of 
religious  persecutions,  a  hinderance  to  the  conver- 
sion of  the  world,  a  sin  against  God,  one  of  the 
most  calamitous  evils  with  which  the  Church  has 
ever  been  visited,  the  most  melancholy  of  all  evils, 

AND  MORE  DISASTROUS  TO  THE  CAUSE  OF  TRUTH 
AND  SALVATION  THAN  ANY  OF  THE  PROGENY  OP 
SUPERSTITION"  ! 

"The  Western  Baptist  Eecorder,"  printed  at 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  says,  "  Of  all  the  damnable 
heresies  in  the  black  catalogue  which  has  befouled 
the  fame  of  Christianity,  we  consider  infant  baptism 
the  most  damnable.  If  other  heresies  have  damned 
their  thousands,  this   has   damned   its   tens   of 

THOUSANDS." 

Dr.  Fuller,  with  all  his  disavowals,  chimes  in 
with  the  same  general  strain  of  his  brethren,  de- 
nouncing infant  baptism  as  "an  antichristian 
practice,  introducing  and  perpetuating  the  most 
glaring  inconsistency  and  mischievous  confusion, 
tarnishing  the  glory  of  the  atonement,  and  doing 
vast  injury  to  our  children." 

Now,  all  this  is  very  expressive  language.  If 
immersionists  are  correct  in  what  they  say,  there 


288  TUE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

nevei-  has  been  a  curse  more  dreadful,  or  u  blight 
more  terrific,  or  a  sin  more  heinous,  than  that  in- 
volved in  the  solemn  dedication  of  little  innocents 
to  the  Savior  who  redeemed  them,  and  the  ad- 
ministration to  them  of  that  ordinance  which  he 
himself  has  appointed  as  the  sign  of  his  love  and 
saving  grace  to  those  who  are  his.  Tyranny  and 
war  and  pestilence  bear  no  comparison  with  it  in. 
evilness.  Infanticide  itself  is  a  blessing  by  its 
side;  for  the  one  touches  only  the  body  and  places 
the  soul  beyond  the  reach  of  pollution,  Avhilst  the 
other  murders  and  damns  the  immortal  spirit. 
We  are  sometimes  in  doubt  to  know  whether  we 
are  to  take  these  men  as  speaking  in  sober  earnest, 
or  whether  they  are  merely  declaiming  for  the  bene- 
fit of  a  sectarian  cause.  But,  in  either  case,  they 
put  themselves  into  a  very  responsible  position. 
If  they  are  not  in  sober  earnest,  they  are  trifling 
with  the  consciences  and  souls  of  men  and  putting 
forth  lies  in  the  name  of  God.  And  if  they  are 
seriously  convinced  of  what  they  say,  they  have 
some  very  momentous  settlements  to  make  with 
the  Christian  sense  and  common  judgment  of  the 
religious  world. 

1.  If  it  is  such  a  terrible  sin,  such  a  guilty 
spoliation  of  all  that  is  good,  to  baptize  children, 
what,  then,  are  we  to  think  of  that  long  proces- 
sion of  good  men  who  are  acknowledged  on  all 
hands  to  be  the  lights  of  the  world  and  the  salt 
of  the  earth,  and  who  have  with  great  strenuous- 
ness  adhered  all  their  lives  long  to  this  damning 
heresy?  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  Knox  and 
Howe,  Leighton   and   Baxter,  Wesley  and  Dod 


INFANT    BAl'TIS.M    NO    SIN.  289 

dridge,  Frankc  and  Arndt,  Brainerd  and  Payson, 
Dwight  and  Chalmers,  and  all  the  very  flower  of 
Christendom  for  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  years, 
have  been  strict  Pedobaptists.  They  all  stood  up 
for  the  baptism  of  infants.  Their  names  and  influ- 
ence were  fully  committed  in  its  favor.  And  are 
we  now  to  regard  them  as  the  enemies  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  the  allies  and  abettors  of  Anti- 
christ? Are  we  at  length  to  set  them  down  as 
the  veriest  sons  of  Belial  ?  Where,  then,  has  the 
Church  of  Jesus  been  for  so  many  ages?  What 
becomes  of  the  holy  faith  and  lauded  virtue  of  the 
martyrs  who  cheerfully  laid  down  their  lives  out  of 
love  for  Jesus?  What  hope  could  they  have  with 
this  sin  of  baptizing  little  children  upon  them, 
unrepented  of  and  unforgiven?  Where,  then, 
shall  we  find  the  Joshuas  and  Elis  and  Ezras  and 
Davids  and  Jeremiahs  and  Daniels  of  the  gospel 
ages?  Has  the  world  all  this  time  mistaken 
them  ?  Must  we  at  length  reverse  the  sentiments 
of  love  and  grateful  praise  which  generations 
have  inscribed  upon  their  tombs,  and  cast  out 
their  names  as  the  pests  of  time,  and  think  of 
them  now  as  the  tenants  of  eternal  perdition? 
God  of  our  fathers,  has  it  come  to  this?  Yes,  it 
has,  if  the  doctrines  of  modei'n  Baptists  on  the 
baptizing  of  infants  be  true.  Alas!  who  can  set 
limits  to  sectarian  fanaticism? 

2.  If  infant  baptism  is  this  "  damnable  heresy" 
which  immersionists  declare  it  to  be, — if  it  is  such 
a  crying  abomination,  such  a  scarlet  dragon,  drip- 
ping from  head  to  foot  with  the  blood  of  souls, — 
the  Scriptures  must  certainly  take  some  notice  of 

25 


290  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEJI    EXAMINED. 

it  or  give  some  cautions  against  it.  An  apostasy 
so  fearful,  a  heresy  so  terrific,  wide-spread,  and 
long-continued,  could  not  have  been  overlooked  in 
Christ's  word  of  warning  to  the  Churches.  Other- 
wise, revelation  would  be  an  insufficient  guide, 
and  does  not  thoroughly  furnish  us  for  every  good 
work.  But  do  the  Scriptures  refer  to  it  ?  Not  a 
writer  against  Pedobaptism  has  ever  brought  for- 
ward one  single  word  of  inspiration  cautioning 
against  it  or  in  the  least  condemning  it.  With 
all  their  enthusiasm,  research,  and  sectarian  zeal, 
they  have  not  even  pretended  that  the  Bible  con- 
tains such  a  passage.  Against  popery,  schism, 
and  skepticism,  against  evil  in  all  its  Protean 
shapes,  and  against  abuses  of  divine  ordinances 
of  all  forms  and  grades,  the  Scriptures  present  the 
fullest  and  most  overwhelming  array.  But  here 
is  a  thing  which  we  are  told  is  the  most  mischiev- 
ous of  errors, — the  most  melancholy  of  all  the 
progeny  of  superstition, — a  death-distilling  upas, 
blasting  the  earth  for  almost  one-third  of  its  age, 
— the  parent  of  popery,  superstition,  and  unbelief, 
spreading  ruin  and  damnation  over  all  the  face  of 
Christendom  from  the  beginning  until  now;  and 
yet  not  a  word  to  be  found  against  it  in  the  Bible, 
not  an  allusion  to  it  in  the  j^rophecies,  and  not  a 
precept  in  all  God's  revelation  to  protect  the 
devout  parent  from  it!  Can  such  a  thing  be 
possible?  Is  not  this  very  silence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  proof  enough  that  infant  baptism  is  not 
and  cannot  be  that  blasting  curse  and  damning 
sin  described  in  Baptist  writings  on  this  subject? 
3.  And  then  again :  if  the  baptizing  of  infants 


INFANT   BAPTISM    NO   SIN.  291 

be  SO  sinful  and  damning,  we  have  a  right  to 
know  in  what  the  strength  or  substance  of  the 
crime  lies.  What  is  sin?  Inspiration  answers, 
"  Sm  is  the  transgression  of  the  law."  "  Where 
no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression."  But  what 
law  is  transgressed  in  infant  baptism?  Can  a 
single  precept  of  God  be  pointed  out  as  violated 
by  it? 

Take  the  law  of  parental  obligation  and  duty. 
Does  the  baptism  of  infants  in  any  way  trans- 
gress it?  No:  it  inculcates,  enforces,  and  seeks 
to  fulfill  it  by  a  solemn  and  formal  acknowledg- 
ment. 

Take  the  law  of  personal  responsibility.  Does 
infant  baptism  violate  this?  No;  for  this  too  it 
acknowledges  in  all  its  rightful  amplitude,  and 
marks  the  child  as  the  Lord's  from  its  very 
infancy  and  binds  it  over  to  be  his  follower  and 
servant.  It  may  be  said  that  such  a  covenant 
has  no  binding  force,  because  the  child  does  not 
voluntarily  participate  in  making  it.  We  answer, 
if  this  law  is  to  prevail,  then  there  is  no  obligation, 
either  to  God  or  man,  except  so  far  as  an  indi- 
vidual voluntarily  chooses  to  have  it  so.  It  makes 
our  consent  the  essence  of  responsibility, — which  is 
a  doctrine  we  repudiate  and  abhor,  as  contrary  to 
all  Scripture  and  common  sense.  God's  laws  are 
the  same  upon  saint  and  sinner.  They  are  as 
binding  upon  him  who  does  not  consent  to  them  as 
upon  him  who  does.  And  as  well  might  we  say 
that  a  child  is  not  lawfully  under  parental  control, 
or  not  bound  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  land  in 
which  it  was  born  and  lives,  because  it  was  not 


292  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

first  consulted  as  to  who  should  be  its  parents  or 
in  what  country  it  was  to  be  born  and  reared. 
According  to  all  constitutions  of  God  and  man, 
the  child  follows  the  parent,  lives  the  parent's 
life,  is  affected  by  the  parent's  condition,  and  is 
most  intimately  bound  up  in  the  parent's  will. 
God  has  made  it  so;  and  no  man  can  alter  it.  And 
when  pious  parents,  with  the  aid  of  God's  ordi- 
nance, dedicate  their  child  to  God,  there  is  a  trans- 
fer made  of  that  child  by  those  whom  God  has 
made  its  representatives,  which  is  owned  and  held 
valid  in  heaven.  So  far,  then,  from  repudiating, 
infant  baptism  enforces  and  establishes,  personal 
responsibility.  It  brings  vividly  to  view,  and 
thus  tightens  up,  the  bonds  under  which  all  men 
stand  to  Him  who  made  them. 

Take  the  law  of  social  privilege.  Baptizing 
infants  does  in  no  way  transgress  it.  It  abridges 
no  rightful  liberty  of  the  child.  Nay,  it  increases 
the  hopes  and  privileges  of  the  little  learner  in 
Christ,  by  bringing  the  proper  persons  under 
expressed  consent  to  see  to  its  spiritual  wants  and 
training. 

Take  even  the  law  of  baptism  and  Christian 
discipleship  itself,  about  which  immersionists  and 
Anabaptists  make  so  much  ado.  Infant  bap- 
tism in  no  way  transgresses  it.  Does  it  specify 
qualifications?  Christ  himself  finds  all  those 
qualifications  in  infants.  "Of  such,"  says  he,  "is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Nay,  so  perfect  is  every 
thing  in  the  little  child  which  is  required  to  qualify 
an  adult  for  baptism  and  discipleship,  that  ho  says 
further,  "Except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as 


INFANT   BAPTISM   NO    SIN.  293 

LITTLE  children;  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  Every  thing  required  of  the  adult  is 
already  in  the  little  child.  The  child  is  the  model, 
so  presented  by  the  Maker  of  the  law,  and  there- 
fore morally  and  spiritually  as  much  entitled  to 
this  sacramental  acknowledgment  of  discipleship 
as  any  one  can.  possibly  be.  Upon  that  point, 
then,  there  is  no  transgression.  Does  instruction 
enter  into  the  case?  There  is  nothing  to  require 
that  instruction  to  precede  the  discipleship.  It  is 
the  coming  of  one  into  the  position  of  a  learner  in 
Christ  that  constitutes  the  discipleship;  and  if  the 
baptism  of  infants  only  serves  as  the  introduction 
of  them  to  this  position  of  learners  in  Christ,  it 
fulfills  all  the  requirements  of  the  law. 

We  therefore  press  and  reiterate  the  question, 
Where,  then,  is  the  ti'ansgression  ?  No  law  is  vio- 
lated; and  where  are  we  to  get  strength  for  the 
life  of  this  dreadful  and  damnable  sin  ?  No  right 
is  invaded;  no  privilege  is  abridged;  no  principle 
of  morality  is  outraged;  no  precept  of  God  is  in- 
fracted. Let  the  law  be  shown  on  which  the  great 
world  of  saints  is  indicted;  let  us  hear  its  pro- 
visions and  penalties;  and  if  we  have  disobeyed 
this  consecration  of  our  babes  to  God,  we  will  re- 
pent in  dust  and  ashes.  But,  until  that  is  done,  we 
will  conclude  and  hold  that  our  accusers  must  be 
mistaken  zealots,  and  that  infant  baptism  is  neither 
mortal  sin  nor  "damnable  heresy." 


25* 


294  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 


CHAPTEE  XXII. 

INFANT   BAPTISM    NOT  CONTRARY   TO   THE    COM- 
MISSION. 

Looking  at  the  fierce  and  terrific  accusations 
which  iramersionists  bring  against  infant  baptism, 
we  would  naturally  suppose  that  they  had  some 
strong  and  positive  foundation  upon  which  to 
rest.  "We  would  at  once  expect  to  see  an  array  of 
Scripture  and  reason  not  easy  to  be  met.  But, 
having  examined  about  a  dozen  of  the  leading 
Baptist  books  upon  the  subject,  we  have  been  more 
than  surprised — we  have  been  amazed — at  the* 
lameness  and  barrenness  of  their  cause.  With  all 
their  parade  and  assurance,  we  have  been  able  to 
find  but  one  single  positive  argument  that  has 
been  produced  anywhere  to  make  out  their  charge 
of  "damnable  heresy."  It  is  that  the  commission 
to  baptize  forbids  the  baptism  of  infants. 

Jesus  says  to  his  ministers,  "Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and,  lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
This  is  the  commission;  and  on  this  the  whole  case 


INFANT    BAPTISM — THE    COMMISSION.  295 

of  the  fierce  assaults  upon  the  baptizing  of  little 
children  is  made  to  repose.  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  I  ana 
willing  to  hang  the  whole  controversy  upon  this 
passage.  .  .  .  Even  if  I  found  another  command, 
enjoining  the  baptism  of  the  infants  of  believers,  I 
should  not  move  an  inch  from  my  position.  ...  I 
would  gainsay  an  angel  from  heaven  who  should 
say  that  this  commission  may  extend  to  the  baptism 
of  any  but  believers  [adults].  .  .  .  Here  I  stand 
entrenched;  and  I  defy  the  ingenuity  of  earth  and 
hell  to  drive  me  from  my  position."  (Pp.  169, 170.) 
Howell  says,  "Infant  baptism  is  prohibited  by  the 
apostolic  commission;  [i.e.  the  commission  given 
to  the  apostles.]  This  is  the  law  of  baptism,  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  himself,  and  the  only  law  he  ever 
ordained  on  the  subject."  (P.  33.)  Dr.  Fuller 
says  "the  argument  from  the  commission  is  dis- 
tinct, conclusive,  irrevocable.  Even  if  infant  bap- 
tism could  be  established  by  other  portions  of  the 
Bible,  it  would  not,  could  not,  be  baptism  under 
the  commission."  (P.  112.)  And  he  further  dis- 
courses as  if  it  were  a  waste  of  time,  a  casting  of 
pearls  before  swine,  to  attempt  argument  with  a 
man  who  does  not  perceive  that  this  commission, 
in  spite  of  every  thing,  forever  excludes  and  pro- 
hibits the  baptizing  of  little  children. 

Now,  it  does  appear  a  little  strange  that  these 
men  are  unwilling  here  to  allow  the  Scriptures 
to  explain  themselves,  or  even  "an  angel  from 
heaven"  to  explain  them,  when,  a  little  while  ago, 
they  considered  it  proper  to  call  in  the  old  heathen 
Greeks  to  tell  us  what  Jesus  meant,  and  by  the 
pains  of  excommunication  hold  us  bound  to  abide 


296  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED 

by  what  these  old  heathen  say.  But  it  is  useless 
to  think  of  fathoming  all  the  depths  of  Baptist 
logic.  The  question  is,  Does  this  commission  exclude 
infants  from  baptism?  We  say  that  it  does  not. 
And  in  this  we  are  sustained  by  the  conviction 
and  constant  practice  of  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tian people  from  the  beginning  until  this  present 
moment.  When  Baptists  assert  that  it  does,  they 
take  issue  with  the  whole  East  and  with  nearly 
the  whole  West.  They  take  issue  with  Origen, 
Firmilian,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Dionysius,  Cyp- 
rian, Victorinus,  Lucian,  Laetantius,  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  Cyril,  Hilary,  Epiphanius,  Basil, 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Chrysos- 
tom,  and  Augustine.  They  take  issue  with  Huss, 
and  Wickliife,  and  Luther,  and  Melanchthon,  and 
Zwingli,  and  the  gi'cat  mass  of  learned  Christian 
men  in  all  nations  and  ages.  Dr.  Fuller  quotes 
from  Grotius,  Calvin,  Barrow,  Saurin,  Vossius, 
Doddridge,  Limborch,  Whitby,  Venema,  and  Bax- 
ter, as  if  they  were  authorities  in  his  favor;  but 
what  are  they,  compared  with  the  list  which  we 
have  given,  and  which  might  be  swelled  to  twenty 
times  the  extent?  Nay,  every  one  of  these  men 
to  whom  he  has  referred  approved,  practiced,  and 
advocated  the  baptizing  of  infants,  and  therefore 
could  not  have  believed  with  him  that  this  com- 
mission excludes  them.  If  the  question,  there- 
fore, is  to  be  decided  by  authority,  it  is  already 
settled,  by  a  perfect  avalanche  of  the  greatest 
names  that  have  ever  been  worn  by  flesh  and 
blood,  including  every  one  of  those  cited  by  Dr. 
Fuller  himself. 


INFANT   BAPTISM — THE   COMMISSION.  297 

We  propose,  however,  to  look  at  the  commission 
itself.  The  particular  part  of  it  on  which  Baptists 
rely  as  excluding  infants  is  the  word  "teach 
\inath.eteusate,']"  which  they  say  must  be  fulfilled 
before  there  can  be  any  baptizing.  Dr.  Fuller 
says,  "It  is  as  plain  as  the  sun  in  the  firmament 
that  before  baptizing  any  one  I  am  to  teach  him, 
and  therefore  that  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized." 
But  Dr.  Fuller's  light  on  this  point  comes  from 
some  other  sun  than  "the  Sun  of  Eighteousness." 
Matheteusate  is  a  word  which  here,  and  nearly 
everywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  is  used  to 
denote  the  entire  work  of  evangelization, — the 
whole  office  and  end  of  the  gospel  in  its  practical 
effects  upon  individuals  or  nations.  It  is  one  of 
the  largest  and  most  comprehensive  words  used  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  describes  and  includes 
the  entire  commission  of  all  the  ministers  and 
Churches  of  Christ  in  this  world.  No  preacher  of 
the  gospel,  and  no  Church,  has  any  thing  more  to 
do  for  Christ,  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  "to  the 
end  of  the  world,"  than  that  which  is  expressed 
in  this  one  word  matheteusate.  And  all  the  highest 
attainments  of  the  best  Christians,  in  know- 
ledge, faith,  obedience,  and  conformity  to  Christ, 
never  once  go  beyond  what  is  expressed  in  this 
word.  The  noblest  and  holiest  of  the  apostles, 
in  all  their  high  qualities  as  Christians,  were 
nothing  more  than  mathetai.  All  that  the  apostles 
ever  did  in  execution  of  the  Savior's  commands, 
and  all  that  the  Church  has  ever  done  or  can  do  In 
these  respects,  is  comprehended  by  this  one  term 
It  is  used  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  times 


298  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

in  the  New  Testament;  and,  wherever  it  is  used 
with  reference  to  the  Savior's  commission,  it  is 
employed  in  this  Lirge  and  comprehensive  sense. 
Hence,  if  the  Baptist  interpretation  is  correct,  and 
the  meaning  of  matheteusate  must  be  fulfilled  upon 
a  man  before  he  is  to  be  baptized,  there  is  no 
authority  in  the  New  Testament  to  baptize  him  at 
all.  The  gospel  has  no  commission  which  is  not 
included  in  matheteusate.  This  is  a  position  which 
no  man  can  overthrow.  If  there  is  any  thing 
clear  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  this.  And  if 
people  must  be  mathetai  before  we  can  proceed  to 
baptize  them,  we  have  no  right  to  baptize  anybody; 
for  no  one  is  a  Christian  mathetaes  before  he  is  bap- 
tized. 

This  settles  the  point  that  there  must  be  some- 
thing wrong  about  the  Baptist  interpretation  of 
this  commission.  In  their  zeal  to  exclude  infants 
they  necessarily  exclude  everybody  else. 

Again :  the  Baptist  interpretation  of  the  com- 
mand makes  it  consist  of  three  sevei*al  things  to 
be  done,  and  that  in  a  fixed  order.  First,  that  we 
are  to  make  a  man  a  mathetaes, — a  true  and  full 
disciple  of  Christ ;  second,  that  after  he  has  been 
made  a  disciple  we  are  to  baptize  him ;  and,  third, 
that  after  he  has  been  made  a  disciple,  and  bap- 
tized in  addition  to  his  discipleship,  we  are  next 
and  finally  to  teach  him  Christ's  commands.  AVhat 
nonsense!  Dr.  Fuller  speaks  of  "this  document  as 
having  been  stretched  on  a  Procustean  bed,  and,  in 
derision  of  Scripture,  amid  the  OTitcries  of  truth 
and  grammar  and  common  sense,  violently  man- 
gled."   Verily,  it  has  been;  and  he  is  one  of  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM — THE    COMMISSION.  299 

priests  who  officiated  at  the  interesting  ceremony. 
Let  us  examine  the  case. 

1.  Upon  the  point  of  Scripture.  The  Scriptures 
everywhere  teach  that  a  Christian  mathetaes — one 
who  has  been  made  the  subject  of  the  command 
matheteusate — is  one  who  is  in  all  respects  a  follower 
of  Christ, — one  who  is  lacking  in  obedience  to  none 
of  the  ordinances  or  requirements  of  Christianity; 
not  one  who  is  only  moved  to  become  a  Christian, 
but  one  who  has  already  been  made  a  Christian. 
(See  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  texts  upon  the 
subject.)  It  is,  then,  indeed  a  ''derision  of  Scrip- 
ture" to  claim  that  one  must  first  undergo  all  that 
is  meant  by  matheteusate  anterior  to  baptism.  It 
is  a  direct  contradiction  of  every  passage  in  which 
the  word  mathetaes  is  found  in  the  New  Testament. 

2.  Upon  the  ''point  of  truth."  We  suppose  that 
Dr.  Fuller  holds  his  own  formal  propositions  to  be 
the  truth.  In  the  latter  part  of  his  book  he  devotes 
eight  pages  to  show  that  "baptism  is  a  prerequisite 
to  Church-memhership."  It  was  not  necessary  for 
him  to  be  so  learned  upon  this  point,  as  no  one 
denies  it  or  ever  has  denied  it.  We  agree  entirely 
with  it.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  there  is  no 
Christian  discipleship  and  no  mathetaes  where  there 
is  no  Church-membership.  Christ  has  no  disciples 
but  those  who  are  in  and  constitute  his  Church, 
which  is  his  body.  Not  all  in  the  Church  visible 
are  really  mathetai;  but  there  are  no  mathetai  out- 
side of  the  Church.  And  if  there  is  no  Church- 
membership  where  there  is  no  baptism,  it  is  indeed 
"amid  the  outcries  of  truth"  that  men  require  us 
to  be  mathetai  before  we  are  baptized. 


300  TIIK    BAPTIST    8YSTKM    KXAMTNri). 

8.  UjDon  the  point  of  grammar.  If  Christ  had 
meant  this  commission  to  enjoin  three  distinct 
items,  each  by  itself  standing  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  command  as  the  other,  the  laws  of  grammar 
would  require  that  each  item  should  be  enjoined  in 
the  same  form  if  contained  in  the  same  sentence. 
Looking  at  the  wording  of  the  commission,  we  find 
it  delivered  in  one  imperative  verb  (inatheteusate) 
and  two  participles,  (baptizontes  and  didaskontes.) 
Dr.  Fuller  takes  these  three  words  as  alike  impera- 
tive, and  as  enjoining  three  distinct  things.  But 
we  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  Campbell  that  "  the 
active  participle  always,  when  connected  with  the 
imperative  mood,  expresses  the  manner  in  which 
the  thing  commanded  is  to  be  performed.  Cleanse 
the  room, — washing  it;  clean  the  floor, — sweeping 
it;  cultivate  the  field, — ploughing  it;  sustain  the 
hungry, — feeding  them;  furnish  the  soldiers, — arm- 
ing them;  convert  the  nations, — baptizing  them, 
are  exactly  the  same  forms  of  speech."  (Christ. 
Bapt.  p.  630.)  This  is  all  correct.  The  thing  to 
be  done  is  expressed  by  the  imperative  verb;  and 
it  is  only  the  manner  of  the  doing  that  is  described 
in  the  connected  participle.  And  so  matheteusate — 
''disciple  the  nations" — describes  the  whole  work 
to  be  done.  This  is  the  general  imperative  injunc- 
tion, including  all  that  follows;  whilst  the  jjarti- 
ciples — baptizontes  and  didaskontes — only  describe 
the  mode  or  particular  way  in  which  the  disci^^lcs 
are  to  be  made.  Every  Greek  grammarian  will 
testify  that  this  is  the  only  true  construction  of 
the  phraseology.  Matheteusate  presents  the  work 
to  be  accomplished,  and  the  participles  baptizontes 


INFANT    BAPTISM — THE   COMMISSION.  301 

and  didaskontes  describe  the  way  in  which  the  great 
work  enjoined  is  to  be  effected.  In  other  words, 
we  are  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations  by  baptizing 
them  and  instructing  them  in  the  commands  of 
Christ.  This  is  the  plain  "grammar"  of  the  case; 
and  its  "outcries"  are  mighty  against  the  tortures 
inflicted  by  Baptist  interpretation. 

4.  A  word  now  on  the  point  of  "common  sense." 
If  the  theory  of  our  recusants  be  correct,  then  a 
man  must  be  a  mathetaes — a  disciple  and  follower 
of  Christ — not  only  previous  to  baptism,  but  even 
before  he  is  instritcted  in  the  commands  of  Christ.  The 
instruction  here  is  the  last  thing  named.  Baptistn 
precedes  it,  and  discipleship  also.  So  that,  to  be 
consistent  with  Baptist  interpretation,  we  must 
baptize  the  nations  before  we  instruct  them  in 
Christianity,  and  make  disciples  of  them  before 
either  teaching  them  or  baptizing  them ! !  Besides, 
if  Christ  meant  that  we  should  make  disciples  of 
people  as  a  thing  to  be  done  before  they  are  bap- 
tized and  taught,  then  what  is  discipleship?  How 
is  it  to  be  effected  ?  In  what  does  it  consist  ?  The 
Scriptures  are  silent.  Common  sense  has  no  reply. 
Baptists  ai-e  contending  for  a  mere  phantom  of  the 
imagination.  And  if  they  are  honest,  and  mean  to 
stick  to  their  theory  upon  this  "  document,"  they 
must  transmute  Christianity  itself  into  a  piece  of 
absurdity  and  nonsense.  I  know  of  nothing  which 
more  outrages  "common  sense." 

Well,  then,  if  matJieteusate  is  not  to  be  taken  sepa- 
rate from  baptizontes  and  didaskontes,  and  does  not 
set  up  a  condition  which  is  to  precede  both, — that 
is,  if  there  can  be  no  discipleship  anterior  to  and 
26 


302  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

apart  from  the  baptizing  and  the  teaching, — it  is 
settled  and  demonstrated  forever  that  there  is 
nothing  in  this  commission  to  exclude  infants  from 
baptism.  The  very  first  thing  here  enjoined,  in 
the  way  of  executing  the  matheteusate,  is  to  baptize 
in  the  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and, 
along  with,  or  following  after,  as  the  case  may  be, 
to  teach  the  baptized  to  observe  whatsoever  things 
Jesus  has  commanded.  This  is  the  commission, 
according  to  the  28th  of  Matthew:  nothing  more 
and  nothing  less,  as  respects  the  point  now  imder 
consideration.  There  is  nothing  in  it  to  hinder 
the  very  first  approach  of  Christianity  to  any  child 
born  in  Christendom  from  being  in  the  shape  of 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  to  make  it  a  learner  in 
the  School  of  Christ.  So  far  as  any  terms  of  the 
command  are  concerned,  our  infant  children  have 
as  much  a  place  in.it  as  in  "all  nations." 

But  Dr.  Fuller,  after  all,  does  not  appear  to  be 
entirely  satisfied  with  his  argument  on  "the  only 
law  Christ  ever  ordained  on  the  subject."  He 
must  needs  connect  with  it  another  and  different 
passage,  (Mark  xvi.  15,)  which  contains  not  one 
single  word  of  command  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 
Mark  tells  us  that,  after  the  resurrection  of  the 
Savior,  he  said  unto  his  chosen  apostles,  "Go  ye 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature."  This  is  the  commission,  and  the  only 
commission,  according  to  Mark.  How  any  one 
should  be  able  to  extract  from  it  a  prohibition  of 
the  baptism  of  infants  is  a  mystery.  But  Dr. 
Fuller  has  attempted  it.  He  says  that  the  "go 
preach"  of  Mark  is  the  same  as  the  matheteusate 


INFANT  BAPTISM — THE   COMMISSION.  303 

of  Matthew,  and  that  the  one  explains  the  other. 
Very  well :  then  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  im- 
plies every  thing  that  the  ministers  of  Jesus  have 
to  do,  in  their  official  capacity,  in  this  world ;  for 
matheteusate  includes  the  entire  Christian  commis- 
sion, as  we  have  shown.  To  preach  the  gospel, 
then,  comprises  also  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments ;  and  this  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  to 
be  "TO  EVERY  CREATURE."  How,  then,  can  infants 
be  excluded  ? 

Dr.  Fuller  says  that  preaching  the  gospel  implies 
teaching.  Very  well :  children  may  be  taught,  and 
must  be  taught ;  but  neither  in  this  passage,  nor  in 
all  the  Bible,  is  there  any  thing  requiring  that  they 
must  be  taught  before  they  dare  be  baptized.  The 
commission,  in  its  own  terms,  applies  to  "all 
nations"  and  "  to  every  creature."  Its  substance 
is,  the  making  of  disciples,  learners,  followers,  of 
Christ.  The  specific  way  to  do  it  is  by  baptizing 
and  teaching.  The  teaching  may  be  before,  along 
with,  or  after  the  baptism.  Christ  leaves  all  that 
open  to  the  necessities  of  the  case.  In  either  event 
the  commission  is  adequately  fulfilled.  If  any 
stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  the  order  in  which  Christ 
has  arranged  the  words  of  the  command,  baptism 
conies  first  and  the  teaching  {didaskontes)  afterward, 
as  the  subject  is  able  to  receive  it.  He  who  finds 
any  thing  in  all  this  to  exclude  the  children  of 
believers  must  first  interline  the  record.  Christ's 
words  do  not  contain  it. 

Much  importance  is  sometimes  laid  upon  the  phrase 
in  Mark,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baj)tized  shall  be 
saved."    This,  Dr.  Fuller  thinks,  "  plainly  requires, 


804  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Ist.  Teaching  or  preaching  the  gospel;  2d.  Faith; 
3d.  Baptism;"  and  that  this  is  the  established 
divine  order  in  every  case.  Now,  if  this  be  true, 
then  no  man  can  ever  afterward  be  saved  if  per- 
chance he  should  be  baptized  before  he  has  really 
exercised  true  faith.  Dr.  Fuller  places  faith 
second,  baptism  third;  accordingly,  if  baptism  by 
any  means  comes  before  faith,  the  divine  order  is 
vitiated,  the  terms  of  salvation  are  not  complied 
with,  and  heaven  is  lost.  This  is  the  natural  and 
necessary  implication  of  his  interpretation.  But 
the  words  of  Christ  sjjecify  no  such  order.  Faith 
may  come  to  maturity  before  or  after  baptism,  and 
still  be  saving  faith.  "He  that  belie veth  and  is 
baptized, — [whether  before  the  exercise  of  personal 
faith  or  afterward,] — he  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved."  Who  could  ask  any  more 
room  for  the  ease  of  people  baptized  in  infancy 
than  is  furnished  in  these  very  words  ?  It  is  not 
said,  He  that  believeth  first,  and  afterward  shall 
be  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  but  He  that  believeth 
and  IS — whether  already  or  hereafter — baptized,  shall 
be  saved.  Christ's  words  prescribe  no  order  of 
essential  antecedence  or  succession.  Let  the  faith 
come  first  or  last,  only  so  that  there  is  faith  and 
baptism,  there  is  salvation.  This  is  God's  cove- 
nant; and  woe  be  to  him  who  undertakes  to  alter 
or  restrict  it ! 

All  expedients  thus  failing  our  immersionist 
friends,  they  next  fix  upon  the  word  '^believeth,"  as 
it  here  occurs  in  Mark's  account,  and  insist  that 
the  commission  limits  baptism  to  such' as  do  per- 
sonally exercise  faith  prior  to,  or  at  the  time  of, 


INFANT    BAPTISM THE    COMMISSION.  305 

their  baptism.  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  I  will  risk  the 
credit  of  my  understanding  on  my  success  in  show- 
ing that,  according  to  this  commission,  believers  only 
are  to  be  baptized."  But  better  and  greater  men 
than  Dr.  Carson  have  risked  the  credit  of  their 
understandings  upon  the  position  that  what  Mark 
here  says  about  faith  and  baptism  permits  the 
administration  of  baptism  to  infants  as  much  as  to 
any  other  class.  So  far  from  being  a  command  to 
baptize  only  adult  believers,  these  words  are  no 
command  at  all.  They  contain  a  simple  announce- 
ment that  all  competent  to  receive  the  gospel  with 
a  personal  faith  must  do  so  on  pain  of  damnation. 
This  no  one  disputes.  Baptism  by  itself  will  save 
no  man.  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned," 
no  matter  whether  he  has  been  baptized  or  not. 
There  must  be  personal  faith  in  all  capable  of  exer- 
cising it,  or  there  can  be  no  salvation.  All  are 
agreed  upon  this.  But  the  question  is,  whether 
this  personal  faith  must  necessarily  precede  one's 
baptism.  That  question  is  not  decided  by  theee 
words,  or  by  any  other  Scripture.  Baptizing  an 
infant  does  not  incapacitate  it  to  grow  up  a  believer 
any  more  than  leaving  it  unbaptized.  And  if  it  is 
baptized,  and  ever  comes  to  the  exercise  of  faith,  it 
is  saved  as  certainly  and  as  effectually  as  any  adult. 
He  who  denies  this  denies  the  word  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  The  promise  is  to  it  as  much  as  to  any 
other.     How,  then,  is  it  excluded  ? 

But,  again :  the  Baptist  argument  that  the 
gospel  enjoins  the  baptism  of  believing  converts, 
and  that  therefore  none  but  believers  are  to  be 

26» 


306  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

baptized,  has  a  very  subtle  sophistry  underlying  it, 
which  needs  to  be  exposed.  It  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption  that  infants  are  skeptics  and  infidels, 
— which  is  untrue. 

We  will  not  now  suffer  ourselves  to  be  drawn 
into  the  metaphysical  speculation  as  to  whether  a 
child  can  or  cannot  have  faith.  We  know  that 
faith  has  its  degrees  and  phases,  that  salvation  is 
accommodated  to  the  necessities  of  all  classes  of 
mankind,  that  infancy  and  childhood  are  the 
periods  of  the  highest  bloom  of  a  confiding  dispo- 
sition, that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  and  not  the 
product  of  human  thought,  understanding,  feeling, 
or  will,  and  that  the  administrations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  bound  to  no  age  or  degree  of  intelli- 
gence, but  extend  as  well  to  the  infant  just  from 
its  mother's  womb  as  to  the  preacher  on  Zion's 
walls  or  the  apostle  amid  the  scenes  of  Pentecost. 
Dr.  Fuller  agrees  that  infants  are  saved,  and 
refuses  to  have  any  thing  to  say  to  those  who  deny 
it.  And  certainly,  if  they  are  saved,  they  must  be 
capable  of  receiving,  and  do  receive,  such  expeii- 
ences  of  God's  methods  of  sanctification  as  to  meet 
all  the  necessities  of  their  tender  age.  It  is  also 
one  of  the  common  laws  of  humanity  that  our 
children  are  reckoned  to  follow  their  parents.  If 
the  parents  are  Jews,  the  children  are  Jews  and 
stand  in  general  relations  with  their  parents. 
If  the  parents  are  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
their  children  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  by 
virtue  of  their  connection  with  their  parents. 
Though  incompetent  to  the  duties  of  citizenship  in 
the  full  extent,  still,  constructively,  they  are  eiti- 


INFANT    BAPTISM — THE   COMMISSION.  807 

zens,  not  aliens,  not  foreigners,  not  enemies.  And 
this  common  law  of  nature  holds  in  all  our  social 
relations.  God  hath  set  man  in  families ;  and  this 
natural  constitution  is  fully  recognized  in  the 
economy  of  grace.  The  gospel  treats  with  adults ; 
but  the  relation  of  adults  to  it  also  includes  and 
affects  their  infant  children  the  same  as  in  every 
other  case.  The  infants  of  pious  parents  are  from 
their  very  birth  in  the  school  of  Christ  and  learners 
of  him.  Nor  is  it  in  the  power  of  man  to  form 
an  estimate  as  to  the  extent  to  which  a  devout  and 
believing  spirit  in  parents  may  be  made  to  infuse 
itself  into  their  children,  or  as  to  how  far  the  dis- 
cipleship  of  pious  parents  secures  and  includes 
discipleship  in  their  infant  offspring.  It  is  certain 
that  divine  influences  may  be  communicated  and 
holy  emotions  awakened  even  before  the  child  has 
learned  the  use  of  speech;  and  that,  where  parents 
will  faithfully  perform  their  part,  their  children 
will  needs  grow  up  disciples,  with  a  mould  of  piety 
dating  back  in  early  infancy.  By  the  necessities 
of  their  age  and  the  relations  in  which  God  has 
placed  them,  their  case  must  be  construed  with 
that  of  their  parents.  They  are  not  infidels,  not 
skeptics,  not  foreigners  and  strangers,  but  Chris- 
tians,— constructive  believers, — at  least  until  they 
have  grown  to  years  of  discretion  and  by  their 
own  deeds  have  placed  themselves  in  a  different 
attitude. 

"What  an  ideal"  exclaims  Mr.  Carson.  "Might 
we  not  as  well  attempt  to  cure  bedlam  with  syllo- 
gisms as  reason  with  persons  who  speak  of  be- 
lieving, militant  infants?     If  any  general  should 


308  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

talk  of  raising  an  army  of  infants  to  oppose  an 
invading  enemy,  he  would  at  once  be  deemed 
insane,  and  his  sovereign  would  not  one  moment 
longer  intrust  him  to  command, — no,  not  though 
he  were  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  But,  when  doc- 
tors of  divinity  speak  like  madmen,  it  is  only  the 
depth  of  their  theological  learning;  and  they  are 
only  the  more  admired."  (P.  217.)  Dr.  Fuller  re- 
echoes his  master  in  this  "  storm  of  hard  words." 
Let  us  see,  then,  where  this  terrific  charge  of  bed- 
lamism,  madness,  lunatic  ravings,  falls,  and  with  what 
sort  of  logic  it  is  sustained. 

In  Jeremiah  i.  5,  God  says  to  the  youthful  pro- 
phet, "Before  thou  earnest  forth  out  of  the  womb 
I  sanctified  thee."  In  Hosea  xi.  1,  the  Lord  saith, 
"When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him."  In 
Luke  i.  15,  an  angel  declares  of  John  that  he  should 
be  "filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from  his 
mother's  womb."  Paul  says  to  Timothy,  (iii.  15,) 
"  From  a  child  \_apo  brephous, — from  an  infant]  thou 
hast  known  the  Hoty  Scriptures."  And  in  Matt, 
xxi.  16,  the  Savior  himself  says,  "  Out  of  the  mouths 
of  babes  and  sucklings  God  has  perfected  praise," 
and,  on  another  occasion,  took  little  children  in 
his  arms  and  declared,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  If  these  are  to  be  taken  as  the  uttei-ances 
of  bedlam  and  the  ravings  of  lunatics,  we  leave  our 
Baptist  friends  to  settle  the  matter  with  Him  "who 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  pro- 
phets." We  prefer  to  see  in  them  a  divine  interest 
and  spiritual  susceptibility  in  little  children,  es- 
pecially as  related    to   believing  parents,  which 


INFANT   BAPTISM THE   COMMISSION.  309 

forbid  us  to  hold  and  treat  them  as  aliens  and  blas- 
phemers. 

We  also  arraign,  as  unsound,  unscriptural,  and 
vicious,  that  principle  which  would  exclude  from  a 
community  all  such  as,  if  wholly  made  up  of  them, 
would  not  be  competent  to  all  its  requisite  func- 
tions. If  such  a  rule  were  to  be  put  in  force,  the 
Church,  and  the  State,  and  humanity  itself,  would 
speedily  be  swept  out  of  existence.  It  is  contrary 
to  all  nature  and  to  all  the  jjrinciples  that  govern 
in  human  things.  Of  course  it  would  be  insane  to 
"talk  of  raising  an  army  of  infants  to  oppose  an 
invading  enemy."  But  would  it  be  less  insane 
for  a  community  at  war  to  turn  over  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy  all  such  as  are  incompetent  to 
take  the  places  of  soldiers  in  the  field  ?  Because 
infants  cannot  occupy  the  trenches,  are  they 
therefore  to  be  treated  as  ahens  and  enemies? 
What  could  be  more  absurd?  And  yet  this, 
according  to  Mr.  Carson's  figure,  is  exactly  what 
our  Baptist  friends  are  doing  in  refusing  to 
admit  our  infants  to  be  of  the  community  of  be- 
lievers. 

Let  us  compare  the  Baptist  principle  of  argu- 
mentation with  certain  facts.  Suppose  that  some 
statesman  were  to  propose  the  organization  of  a 
congress  or  parliament  of  infants.  '♦  He  would  at 
once  be  deemed  insane,"  says  Mr.  Carson.  Why? 
Because  infants  have  not  the  knowledge  and  expe- 
rience for  legislation.  And  yet  it  was  deemed 
right  and  proper  for  the  Prince  of  Wales  to  be 
acknowledged  as  a  member  of  the  British  House 
of  Lords  from  infancy;  and  from  his  birth  or  bap- 


310  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

tism  his  Dame  occupied  the  first  place  on  the  roll 
of  that  honorable  house,  without  disadvantage  to 
Bi'itish  interests  or  to  the  credit  of  the  British 
Constitution.  In  the  book  of  Numbers,  iii.  28,  we 
read  of  the  family  of  the  Kohathites,  that  to  their 
males  ^'fro7n  a  month  old  and  upward"  was  given 
the  charge  of  keeping  the  sanctuary.  "What!" 
Dr.  Carson  may  say;  "infants  a  month  old  keep 
God's  sanctuary !  Might  we  not  as  well  attempt 
to  cure  bedlam  with  syllogisms  as  reason  with 
l^ersons  who  talk  of  infants  keeping  a  charge?" 
Yet  this  was  an  ari'angement  of  God  himself],  and 
recorded  by  the  Holy  Ghost  for  our  leai'ning.  In 
Deuteronomy  xxix.  10,  Moses  says  to  Israel,  "Ye 
stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your  God; 
your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and  your 
officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little 
ONES,  your  wives,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy 
camp,  from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the  drawer 
of  thy  water;  that  thou  shouldst  enter  into  covenant 
loith  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his  oath,  which  the 
Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day."  What ! 
infants  enter  into  covenant  with  God !  Infants 
stand  up  to  take  an  oath!  Madness!  madness! 
exclaim  our  Baptist  friends.  But  either  Moses 
was  a  lunatic,  or  the  Holy  Ghost  a  liar,  or  this 
very  thing  was  done.  Little  children,  even  of  the 
youngest  age,  were  accounted  parties  to.  this  great 
spiritual  transaction,  and  that  by  authority  of 
God.  Let  our  recusants  get  around  it  if  they  can. 
Again :  in  2  Chron.  xx.  we  read,  that  when  Am- 
mon,  Moab,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mount  Seir 
marched  their  combined  forces  against  Jehosha- 


INFANT   BAPTISM — THE   COMMISSION.  311 

phat,  "All  Judah  stood  before  the  Lord,  with 
THEIR  little  ONES,  their  wives,  and  their  chil- 
dren;" and  their  united  supplication  was,  "O  our 
God,  wilt  thou  not  judge  them?  for  we  have  no 
might  against  this  company:  .  .  .  but  our  eyes 
are  upon  thee."  Here  are  infants  and  children 
reckoned  as  taking  part  in  a  great  public  suppli- 
cation and  engaged  in  the  work  of  opposing  an 
enemy.  How  could  this  be  said  of  babes?  Yet 
God  does  say  it  of  an  entire  community,  in  which 
babes  are  specified  as  doing  what  their  parents 
did.  They  were  reckoned  with  the  people  with 
whom  they  were  domestically  related;  and  this 
is  the  common  custom  of  the  inspired  writers. 

We  submit  here  the  question  put  by  Dr.  Eice : — 
"  Wlien  did  God  ever  enter  into  covenant  with  parents 
without  including  their  infant  children  F  Is  there  a 
solitary  example  of  the  kind  in  the  Bible  ?"  Not 
one.  The  covenant  with  Abraham  included  the 
youngest  children.  The  covenant  of  Moses  did 
the  same.  And  when  Peter,  "full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  came  to  expound  the  new  covenant  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  he  said  to  all  who  yielded  to 
his  words,  "  The  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your 
children."  (Acts  ii.  39.) 

This  ought  to  settle  the  point  that  children  are 
not  to  be  viewed  as  aliens  and  infidels,  but  that 
they  follow,  as  infants,  the  condition  and  relations 
of  their  parents;  and  that,  if  domestically  related 
to  believers,  they  are  to  be  reckoned  as  believers 
and  to  be  treated  in  some  sense  as  such.  All  this 
hue  and  cry,  then,  about  baptizing  unbelievers — as 
if  wo  were  baptizing  skeptics  and  infidels  when 


812  TIIK    T.AI'TIST    SVSTKM    KXAMINKO. 

we  baptize  infants — is  without  foundation  and  con- 
trary to  the  letter  and  the  whole  spirit  of  the 
Scriptures. 

Then  again :  the  rigid  interpretation  insisted 
on  by  Baptists,  that  the  commission  allows  the 
baptizing  of  none  but  such  as  actually,  truly,  and 
personally  believe,  involves  other  embarrassments. 
If  we  are  to  baptize  believers  only,  how  can 
we  baptize  anybody?  Do  Baptists  fulfill  their 
interpretation  of  the  commission?  We  aver  that 
they  do  not.  They  themselves  must  admit,  and 
have  admitted,  that  they  do  not.  Campbell  sadly 
tells  us  that  not  one-tenth  part  of  those  immersed 
by  him  and  his  associates  can  enter  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Why?  Because  their  after-lives  have 
shown  that  they  had  no  i-eal  faith.  Then,  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten,  according  to  his  own  doctrine  and 
concessions,  his  baptisms  are  but  violations  of 
Christ's  commands  and  a  profanation  of  God's 
holy  sacrament.  Nine  times  out  of  ten  his  efforts 
to  keep  his  interpretation  of  the  commission  have 
failed.  And  every  one  who  attempts  it  must  fail. 
The  apostles  and  inspired  preachei'S  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  Church  failed.  They  bap- 
tized Simon  Magus,  and  it  afterward  turned  out 
that  he  had  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  matter. 
They  baptized  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  others 
who  afterward  showed  that  they  had  no  faith. 
Then,  if  Baj)tist  interpretation  is  to  stand,  they 
were  mere  violators  of  their  Lord's  command, 
with  all  their  inspiration!  Man  cannot  see  the 
heart;  he  cannot  know  what  is  in  his  brother. 
He  may  think  he  has  credible  evidence  of  faith 


INFANT  BAPTISM — THE   COMMISSION.  313 

or  of  a  hopeful  approach  to  it;  and  on  that  ground 
the  Baptist  proceeds  to  baptize.  We  do  not  say 
that  he  is  wrong  in  this.  It  is  all  that  we  can 
ask.  It  is  all  that  Christ  meant  that  we  should 
require.  But  we  declare  and  hold  that  we  have 
every  whit  as  much  ground  to  believe  and  hope 
that  the  children  of  believers  will  grow  up  pious 
as  that  upon  which  the  Baptist  proceeds  with  his 
''believer's  baptism,"  as  he,  with  a  flourish,  calls  it. 

Dr.  Baker  says,  "Some  years  since,  the  assertion 
having  been  made  that  the  children  of  the  pious 
were  no  better  than  others,  an  investigation  was 
made;  and,  the  families  within  a  certain  district 
having  been  divided  into  three  classes, — those  in 
which  both  parents  were  professedly^  pious,  those 
in  which  only  one  parent  was  a  professor,  and 
those  in  which  neither  parent  made  any  preten- 
sions to  religion, — it  was  ascertained  that  of  the 
children  over  ten  years  of  age,  in  the  first  class, 
tico-thirds  were  hopefully  pious;  and,  in  the  second 
class,  about  one-third."  (Sermons,  1st  ser.  p.  204.) 
It  is  also  asserted  with  confidence,  of  a  Pedo- 
baptist  denomination  famous  for  its  spirituality 
and  missionary  fervor,  that  "not  one  of  ten  of  its 
members  can  remember  the  period  when  he  began 
to  be  pious," — an  indication  most  gratifying  as  to 
the  proportion  of  pious  among  the  children  of 
their  members.  Nay,  God  himself  says,  "  Train 
up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is 
old  he  will  not  depart  from  it."  (Prov.  xxii.  6.)  All 
that  is  necessary,  then,  for  an  infant  to  make  it 
the  child  of  God  is  to  train  it  right.  If  parents 
will  only  "  bring  it  up  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
27 


314  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

tion  of  the  Lord/'  its  spiritual  character  is  vouched 
for  by  God  himself.  And  this  they  are  required 
to  profess  and  promise  before  we  can  baptize  their 
children.  Profession  and  promise  is  all  that  Bap- 
tists deem  necessary.  So  that,  all  taken  together, 
we  have  full  as  much  ground  to  hope  that  we  are 
conferring  baptism  upon  believers  only  when  we 
thus  baptize  our  babes,  as  Baptists  have  for  their 
vaunted  "believer's  baptism."  Taking  their  own 
view  of  the  commission  in  this  particular,  we 
challenge  them  to  the  proof  that  we  come  any 
further  short  of  it  than  they  themselves. 

But  there  is  another  and  more  serious  aspect 
of  the  Baptist  argument  on  the  commission,  which 
shows  that  they  do  most  sadly  wrest  God's  holy 
word.  If  this  quotation  from  Mark  excludes  in- 
fants from  baptism,  it  at  the  same  time,  and  with 
the  same  force,  excludes  them  from  salvation  and 
makes  "  another  gospel"  necessary  to  bring  them 
to  heaven.  If  they  dare  not  be  baptized  because 
they  do  not  exercise  personal  faith,  then,  accord- 
ing to  the  same  record,  they  must  be  damned  for 
the  same  reason.  If  this  commission  serves  to 
prohibit  their  baptism,  it  must  serve  also  to  damn 
them  if  they  should  die  before  arriving  at  years 
of  discretion.  The  only  way  in  which  Baptists 
can  escape  the  monstrous  conclusion  to  which 
their  logic  on  this  passage  drives  them  is  to  pro- 
vide a  different  gospel  for  childi'cn  than  for  men. 
After  what  Paul  has  said  upon  the  subject  of 
"another  gospel/'  we  would  hardly  suppose  it 
possible  for  any  one  to  think  seriously  of  such  a 
thing.     "  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven/' 


INFANT   BAPTISM — THE    COMMISSION.  815 

says  he,  "preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than 
that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  Mm  be 
accursed."  (Gal.  i.  8,  9.)  And  yet  the  logic  of  our 
Baptist  friends  has  driven  them  to  admit  "another 
gospel"  as  necessary  to  keep  departed  babes  out 
of  hell !     Hear  them. 

Mr.  Ewing,  on  Mark  xvi.  16,  says,  "From  this 
text  some  infer  that  a  person  must  actually  be- 
heve,  else  he  cannot  be  baptized.  "With  as  much 
reason  they  might  infer  that  a  person  must 
actually  believe,  else  he  cannot  be  saved."  To 
this  the  most  learned  Baptist  critic  replies,  "  Cer- 
tainly :  if  there  were  no  way  of  saving  children  but  by 
the  gospel,  this  conclusion  would  be  inevitable.  The 
gospel  saves  none  but  by  faith.  The  gospel  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  infants.  By  the  gospel  no  infant 
CAN  BE  SAVED.  Infants  who  enter  heaven  must 
be  regenerated,  but  not  by  the  gospel.  The  man 
who  would  preach  infant  salvation  out  of  the 
apostolic  commission,  or  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
commission  may  be  explained  so  as  to  include 
IT,  I  SHOULD  GAINSAY,  on  the  Same  ground  on 
which  I  resist  the  attempts  to  include  in  it  infant 
baptism."  (P.  173.)  "Infants  are  not  saved  by 
the  new  covenant,  and  therefore  cannot  be  con- 
nected with  it  in  any  view  which  represents  them 
as  interested  in  it.  It  is  a  vulgar  mistake  of  theo- 
logians to  consider  that  if  infants  are  saved  they 
must  be  saved  by  the  new  covenant.  .  .  .  Were  it 
true  that  infants  could  not  be  saved  but  by  this  cove- 
nant, none  of  them  would  be  saved."  (Pp.  216,  216.) 
Dr.  Fuller  takes  the  same  gi'ound, — as  all  consistent 
with  the  Baptist  interpretation  must, — that  "J/i 


316  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

fants  are  neitlier  saved  nor  baptized  under  the  com- 
mission." (P.  116.)  The  adoption  of  the  one 
position  carries  with  it  the  other.  If  infants  can- 
not be  baj^tized  under  this  commission,  they  can- 
not be  saved  under  it.  Then  how  are  they  saved  ii' 
The  answer  from  the  Baptist  champions  is,  ^^  By 
another  covenant, — by  another  gospel."  There  is 
no  other  alternative.  And,  as  there  is  no  other 
gospel,  and  cannot  be  another,  the  Baptist  reason- 
ing on  this  point  at  once  cuts  off  salvation  from 
our  dying  babes,  and  writes  upon  every  infant's 
tomb,  "Lost! — Lost! — Lost!"  What,  then,  be- 
comes of  the  Savior's  precious  words? — "Suffer 
little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto 
me;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Alas! 
alas!  their  meaning  is  gone,  and  our  little  ones 
whom  we  committed  to  the  ground  "  are  perished." 
One  of  three  things,  therefore,  must  be  true. 
First,  infants  are  reached  by  the  commission,  and 
may  and  ought  to  be  baptized,  so  far  as  thej^  are 
thereby  being  put  into  the  position  of  learners  in 
Christ;  or,  second,  there  must  be  another  and 
different  gospel  for  them  than  for  adults;  or,  third, 
all  who  die  in  infancy  are  forever  lost.  The  reader 
is  to  judge  which  is  the  most  agreeable  to  reason, 
Scripture,  and  common  sense.  We  have  no  fears 
as  to  the  result  of  an  unbiased  judgment  in  the 
case.  The  great  and  only  argument  which  Bap- 
tists have  produced  against  the  baptizing  of  in- 
fants drops  asunder  like  flax  at  the  touch  of  flame. 
It  quite  dissolves  before  an  intelligent  examination 
of  the  truth.  The  charge  of  "  damnable  heresy" 
rebounds  upon  the  heads  of  those  who  make  it. 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.      317 


CHAPTEE  XXIII. 

THE   RELATIONS   OF   INFANTS    TO   THE   KINGDOM — AN 
ARGUMENT    FOR   THEIR   BAPTISM. 

We  think  it  has  now  been  shown  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  commission  which  Christ  has  given 
to  his  Church,  which,  by  any  tenable  system  of 
interpretation,  can  be  made  to  exclude  the  infants 
of  believers  from  baptism.  And  if  the  commission 
does  not  exclude  them  it  includes  them;  and  it  is 
Christ's  will  that  they  should  be  baptized.  This 
ought  to  be  enough  to  satisfy  any  one  not  hope- 
lessly committed  to  a  sectarian  cause.  It  quite 
disposes  of  the  only  show  of  argument  which  our 
Baptist  friends,  in  all  their  zeal,  have  been  able  to 
present.  But  we  propose  now  to  present  the 
cause  of  infant  baptism  in  much  deeper  relations 
than  those  of  the  mere  naked  letter  of  Scripture, 
and  to  show  that  it  is  seated  in  the  very  heart  and 
life  of  Christianity. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  kingdom  of  grace, — a 
plan  or  economy  of  divine  operations  by  which 
God  has  been  moving  since  the  foundation  of  the 
world  to  redeem  and  renew  poor  fallen  humanity. 
This  kingdom  is  the  centre  and  controlling  princi- 
ple of  all  providence,  all  history,  and  all  Scripture. 
It  began  with  the  gracious  purposes  and  promises 

27« 


318  TIIK    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

of  God,  and  is  to  reach  its  consummation  in  the 
ultimate  completion,  glory,  and  rest  of  the  Church 
in  the  heavenly  state.  It  is  a  grand  and  wonder- 
ful administration,  which  centres  in  and  goes  out 
from  Christ  in  his  character  of  Mediator  between 
God  and  an  apostate  world.  It  also  comprehends 
all  of  the  human  race,  of  every  age  and  of  every 
class,  who  are  recovered  from  the  fall,  made  the 
sons  of  God  by  adopting  love,  or  in  any  way 
brought  from  the  ruins  of  sin  to  the  joys  and 
honors  of  ultimate  salvation.  These  are  sublime 
propositions,  which  compass  the  whole  spirit,  aim, 
and  meaning  of  Providence  and  revelation.  They 
jH'esent  the  sum  of  all  God's  merciful  dealings  with 
our  world.  No  man  can  deny  them  and  be  a 
Christian. 

Now,  it  is  equally  clear  that  this  divine  and 
blessed  economy  has  a  visible,  tangible,  and  out- 
ward existence  in  our  world.  It  stands  connected 
with  external  manifestations,  signs,  agencies,  and 
administrations,  which,  in  the  aggregate,  we  are 
accustomed  to  call  the  Church.  These  external 
signs  and  forms  have  not  always  been  exactty  the 
same.  God  has  varied  them  to  suit  the  condition 
of  humanity  in  its  different  eras  of  growth  and 
spiritual  development.  Dispensations  change,  but 
it  is  ever  the  same  gracious  kingdom  and  the 
same  glorious  Church;  just  as  a  nation  or  empire 
may  modify  its  laws  or  change  its  administrations 
and  yet  remain  the  same  body-politic.  God  has 
but  one  Church,  one  remedial  kingdom,  from  the 
beginning  on  forever. 


RKLATIONS  OF  INSANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.       319 

I.  "We  lay  it  down,  then,  as  a  plain  and  obvious 
truth,  that,  if  God  has  such  a  kingdom,  and  has 
connected  it  with  certain  outward  ritual  signs,  all 
who  are  savingly  reached  by  it  or  are  members 
of  it,  unless  excluded  by  specific  law,  must  be 
equally  entitled  to  those  ritual  signs,  and  no  man 
has  any  right  to  withhold  them.  The  man  in  all 
respects  a  citizen  of  our  country  is  entitled  to 
every  thing  in  which  citizenship  is  signified  or 
expressed,  except  where  there  is  specific  law  dis- 
abling him  as  to  some  of  the  superior  offices. 
This  is  a  clear  principle,  recognized  and  approved 
in  all  society,  and  which  must  hold  good  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  well  as  in  the  states  of  earth. 
To  allow  one  to  be  altogether  a  child  of  grace  and 
a  participant  in  the  immunities  of  redemption, 
and  yet  to  deny  to  it  the  signals  and  badges  and 
tokens  of  its  accepted  estate,  is  a  piece  of  gross 
injustice  and  absurdity.  It  is  to  affirm  and  deny 
at  the  same  time.  It  is  a  proceeding  which  all 
right  reason  and  common  sense  must  at  once  con- 
demn. 

II.  We  furthermore  affirm,  and  hold  ourselves 
in  readiness  to  prove,  that  our  infants  are  as  com- 
pletely reached  and  embraced  by  the  remedial 
kingdom  as  any  adults,  so  that  if  they  should  die 
in  infancy  they  are  as  truly  among  the  saved  as 
those  who  leave  the  world  after  the  longest  lives 
of  saintship.  We  suppose  that  Baptists  and  Chris- 
tians generally  Avill  readily  admit  this.  Dr.  Fuller 
Bays,  ''Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  and  ourselves 
have  no  controversy  about  the  salvation  of  infants. 


320  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

If  any  man  believes  that  infants,  with  or  without 
water,  will  be  damned,  I  have  nothing  to  say  to 
that  man."  (P.  108.)  Three  evangelists  have  told 
us  that  our  Savior  took  up  little,  young,  infant 
children  in  his  arms  and  said,  ''Of  such  is  the 
KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN)"  that  is,  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  made  up  of  them  and  all  like  them.  Some 
have  undertaken  to  say  that  this  declaration  of 
the  Lord  does  not  include  children,  but  refers  only 
to  such  as  are  like  them.  But,  if  this  passage  does 
not  include  children,  heaven  does  not  include  them. 
There  can  be  no  salvation  apart  from  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  heaven.  And  if  this  saying  does  not 
put  our  babes  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  it  inevitably 
puts  them  in  hell.  There  is  no  other  alternative. 
Infants,  therefore,  are  included  in  the  remedial 
kingdom,  or  they  are  not  included  in  the  hopes 
and  promises  of  heaven,  and  those  of  them  "which 
are  fallen  asleep  are  perished." 

III.  It  is  also  a  scriptural  truth,  not  to  be 
disputed,  that,  under  the  dispensation  now  in 
force,  baptism  is  the  divinely  appointed  token  and 
sacrament  of  Christian  discipleship, — the  solemn 
rite  in  which  the  remedial  kingdom  comes  to  men 
and  men  come  into  visible  relationship  with  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  is  the  great  christening  ordi- 
nance, without  which  no  one  can  be  regarded  as 
truly  a  Christian.  Jesus  has  said,  Make  disciples 
of  the  nations,  "  baptizing  them."  There  is,  then,  no 
complete  discipleship,  no  proper  relation  to  the 
divine  kingdom,  where  there  is  no  baptism.  It  is 
by  baptism  that  the  Savior  himself  was  Christed, 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.       321 

anointed,  and  visibly  installed  into  the  great  offic« 
of  mediatorship.  He  performed  not  one  single 
function  of  his  mediatorial  office  until  he  was  bap- 
tized. It  was  by  that  service  that  he  was  officially 
made  the  Christ;  and  it  is  by  the  same  sort  of 
service  that  those  who  are  his  become  officially 
identified  with  his  Christhood  and  participants  in 
the  saving  benefits  of  his  administrations.  This 
is  God's  law  upon  the  subject.  Whosoever,  then, 
is  unfit  for  baptism,  is  unfit  for  salvation,  unfit  to 
be  a  partaker  of  his  renewing  and  sanctifying 
mercies.  Disqualification  for  baptism  is  disquali- 
fication for  the  kingdom;  for  baptism  is  the  sign 
and  sacrament  of  saving  relation  to  that  kingdom. 
Baptists  greatly  mistake  the  nature  and  design 
of  this  ordinance  when  they  present  it  as  the 
mere  act  of  a  believing  man,  by  which  he  evinces 
his  obedience  and  joins  himself  to  the  visible 
Church.  Baptism  is  an  act  which  goes  out  from 
Christ, — a  divine  motion  toward  the  sinner.  Jesus 
says,  "Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen 
you."  All  faith  has  something  underlying  it 
which  is  altogether  of  God.  Salvation  comes  to 
us  first;  and  if  any  man  is  a  believer  it  is  because 
God  first  came  to  him  and  enabled  him  to  believe. 
Faith  is  built  upon  something  anterior  to  itself  It 
is  the  mere  yielding  and  bending  of  the  soul  to  the 
movings  of  divine  grace  toward  it.  The  king- 
dom must  come  to  us  before  we  can  come  to  the 
kingdom.  And  what  baptism  signifies  is  not  so 
much  our  yielding  or  believing,  as  God's  saving 
grace  availing  for  our  souls.  It  is  the  token  of 
divine  favor  and  blessing, — the  sign  of  what  God 


322  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

does,  rather  than  what  we  do.  Now,  if  no  man 
resisted  the  movings  of  divine  grace  which  under- 
lie all  faith,  no  man  would  fail  of  salvation.  So 
long  as  there  is  not  positive  unbelief  and  dis- 
obedience, grace  savingly  applies.  It  is  in  this 
way  that  salvation  comes  to  the  infant  world. 
And,  wherever  redeeming  grace  avails,  baptism  is 
the  appointed  token,  and  signal,  and  seal  of  the 
fact.  It  is  a  sort  of  magna  charta  from  God, 
outwardly  signifying,  conferring,  guaranteeing, 
and  sealing  the  rights,  immunities,  and  blessings 
of  his  remedial  kingdom  to  all  entitled  to  them. 
This  is  a  grant  which  must  come  anterior  to  faith. 
It  is  upon  this  that  faith  is  built.  It  is  a  grant 
which  looks  to  the  awakening  of  faith  and  accept- 
ance on  our  part.  Unbelief  and  disobedience  may 
reject  the  grant  and  vitiate  the  covenant;  but, 
until  there  is  positive  unbelief  and  rejection  of  the 
offered  grace  of  the  gospel,  that  grant  or  cove- 
nant is  effective  and  holds  good  unto  salvation. 

IV.  Now,  then,  as  children  are  reached  by 
God^s  saving  grace  and  are  real  participants  in 
the  blessings  of  the  remedial  kingdom,  and  as  bap- 
tism is  at  least  the  outward  token  of  the  motions 
and  applications  of  that  saving  grace,  w^ithout  a 
specific  warrant  from  God  himself,  to  deny  bap- 
tism to  children,  is  either  to  deny  children  a  place 
in  the  divine  kingdom,  or  to  disconnect  baptism 
from  that  from  which  alone  it  derives  its  signifi- 
cance and  hfe  and  to  which  God  himself  has 
joined  it.  In  either  case  we  contradict  plain 
Scripture   and  fact.      So   that  from  the  deepest 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.   323 

heart  and  life  of  Christianity  we  are  called  upon 
to  baptize  infants  as  well  as  adults. 

We  will  endeavor  to  present  this  thought  in 
other  forms.  Baptism  is  the  saci*ament  of  re- 
generation; that  is,  it  is  a  visible  rite  which 
God  has  connected  with  the  saving  operations  of 
his  grace  in  Christ  Jesus.  It  is  an  outward  sign 
coupled  with  an  invisible  grace.  Where  the  in- 
visible grace  is,  there  this  sign  belongs.  Infants 
are  pai'takers  of  this  invisible  grace:  "of  such  is 
the  kingdom."  They  ai-e  among  the  saved  by  the 
remedial  scheme  set  forth  in  Christ  Jesus.  To 
them,  therefore,  belongs  also  the  sign  which  God 
has  instituted  to  accompany  this  invisible  grace. 
If  they  are  incompetent  to  receive  the  outward 
sign,  they  are  still  more  incompetent  to  receive 
the  invisible  and  saving  mercy  signified;  and  so, 
if  they  are  not  fit  to  be  baptized,  they  are  incapa- 
ble of  salvation,  and,  dying  in  childhood,  must 
be  lost. 

Baptists  agree  tnat  infants  must  be  regenerated 
in  order  to  enter  heaven, — that  they  must  become 
subjects  of  the  saving  efficacy  of  the  remedial 
kingdom.  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  Infants  who  enter 
heaven  must  be  regenerated.  .  .  .  Infants  must 
be  sanctified."  (P.  173.)  Why,  then,  deny  them 
the  sacrament  of  regeneration, — the  token  which 
marks  and  indicates  that  sanctification?  If  they 
have  the  thing,  wo  have  no  right  to  withhold 
God's  appointed  sign  or  seal  of  that  thing. 

Every  informed  Christian  will  admit  that  the 
mediatorial  constitution  is  not  to  be  bounded  in 
its  capacity  or  force  by  any  merely  chronological 


324  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

or  geograpiiical  lines  in  the  history  of  the  race, 
allowing  it  to  be  eflScacious  only  for  the  people  of 
this  or  that  country  or  this  or  that  period.  Such 
a  thought  would  be  exceedingly  repugnant  to 
every  Christian  sense  and  feeling.  But  it  cer- 
tainly is  no  less  offensive  and  abhorrent  to  limit  or 
bound  the  force  of  this  salvation  by  a  line  sunder- 
ing infancy  and  childhood  from  riper  age,  and  to 
make  it  of  real  effect  on  one  side  of  this  line  only 
and  not  on  the  other.  Humanity  is  not  merely 
our  mature  life,  but  all  the  stages  through  which 
we  reach  maturity.  It  includes  infancy  and  child- 
hood as  a  necessarj'  part  of  its  constitution.  A 
large  proportion  of  it  exists  always  under  this 
form;  and  nearlj^  one-half  of  it  is  cut  off  by  death 
before  it  reaches  maturity.  Now,  the  question  is 
not  simply,  Can  such  infants  be  saved  if  they  should 
happen  to  die?  but,  Is  there  no  real  room  for  them, 
living  or  dying,  in  the  concrete  mystery  of  the 
new  creation,  in  the  communion  of  Christ's  media- 
torial life,  in  the  efficacy  of  God's  remedial  king- 
dom, in  the  bosom  of  the  one  holy,  catholic 
Churcli?  Does  the  nature  of  the  second  Adam 
and  of  the  regenerative  scheme  going  out  from 
him  take  in  and  reach  only  one-half  of  humanity 
while  it  wholly  excludes  the  other?  Such  an 
imagination  is  worse  than  foolish.  It  would  take 
from  Christ  his  claim  to  be  a  universal  Savior, 
and  from  redemption  its  commensurateness  with 
the  fall.  Christ  must  be  coextensive  in  his  king- 
dom with  universal  humanity  from  infancy  to 
old  age  as  well  as  with  its  mere  numerical  expan- 
sion,    Paul  teaches  us  that  the  second  Adam,  in 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.      325 

his  saving  power,  is  more  than  commensurate 
with  the  ruin  of  the  first.  (Eom.  v.  12-21.)  And, 
as  infants  were  embraced  by  the  law  of  sin  and 
death,  it  demands  the  most  solid  proofs  to  show 
that  they  are  shut  out  from  the  law  of  the  spirit 
of  life  in  Christ  Jesus.  No  one  is  prepared  to 
deny  the  capability  of  infants  for  salvation ;  and 
no  one  is  prepared  to  show  that  infants  are  not 
partakers  of  the  common  corruption  which  has 
resulted  from  the  fall.  Christianity,  then,  must 
have  a  place  for  them.  The  remedial  kingdom 
must  reach  them.  Saving  grace  must  somehow 
avail  for  them.  And,  as  Christ  and  heaven  stretch 
out  their  arms  to  our  babes  and  say,  ^^Let  them 
come:  of  such  is  the  kingdom,"  nothing  short  of  an 
express  and  pointed  "  thus  saith  the  Lord"  will 
warrant  any  man  to  rise  up  and  say  that  the  sign 
and  seal  of  such  gracious  relations  does  not  be- 
long to  them. 

Infants  are  a  part  of  Christ's  mystical  body. 
They  are  an  integral  portion  of  that  humanity  for 
which  his  mediation  avails.  They  are  redeemed 
by  his  blood.  They  are  among  the  purchases  of 
his  death.  Until  they,  by  unbelief  and  disobe- 
dience, reject  him,  they  are  his.  Redemption  is 
efficacious  for  them.  The  kingdom  of  God  is 
of  them  and  others  like  them.  If  this  is  not  true, 
there  is  no  hope  for  them.  Just  as  surely,  then, 
as  God  has  linked  baptism  to  the  effectual  appli- 
cation of  saving  grace,  to  signify  and  seal  it,  and 
just  as  certainly  as  it  is  Christ's  appointed  badge 
for  those  who  are  partakers  of  his  healing  and 
saving  life-power,  it  is  to  be  administered  to 
28 


326  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXA5IINED. 

infants,  and  the  deepest  and  most  vital  constitu- 
tion of  Christianity  is  touched  and  violated  by 
excluding  them  from  it.  Indeed,  to  us  there 
seems  to  be  but  this  one  alternative, — that  infants 
are  entitled  to  baptism,  or  else  they  must  perish; 
— ^not  that  baptism  alone  can  save  them,  but  for 
the  reason  that  any  thing  which  incapacitates 
them  for  baptism  must  at  the  same  time  incapaci- 
tate them  for  salvation.  As  has  been  remarked 
by  an  able  Review,  "If  children  may  not  be 
baptized,  they  cannot  in  any  way  be  gathered 
into  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  Then  it  cannot  be 
said  that  Christ  has  room  for  them  at  present  in 
his  arms.  His  grace  may  have  regard  to  them  pros- 
pectively; but  where  they  are  just  now,  by  the 
fearful  disabilities  of  childhood,  it  cannot  reach 
them  or  touch  them  in  the  way  of  help.  Their 
only  hope  is  in  the  uneovenanted  mercies  of  God 
and  his  power  at  pleasure  to  save  without  Christ. 
They  are  disqualified  constitutionally  for  Christian 
salvation.  On  Baptist  premises  we  see  no  escape 
from  this  conclusion." 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  this  is  too  round- 
about and  inferential  a  way  to  find  authority  for 
infant  baptism.  But  Dr.  Carson  agrees  that  a 
solid  and  legitimate  inference  following  from  clear 
and  expressed  scriptural  principles  is  just  as 
authoritative  as  the  explicit  words  of  inspiration. 
Nay,  this  perpetual  harping  upon  the  mere  letter 
of  the  law,  which  insists  that  a  case  is  not  pro- 
vided for  unless  set  forth  in  express  terms,  as 
remarked  in  the  Eeview  above  quoted,  ''  is  a  mon- 
strous falsehood,  as  well  as  a  miserable  Jewish 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.   C27 

pedantry.  Christianity  has  a  life  and  constitution 
of  its  own,  in  the  bosom  of  which  only,  and  by 
the  power  of  which  alone,  the  true  sense  of  the 
Bible  can  be  fairly  understood;  and  in  this  view 
it  is  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  by  the 
universal  Church  from  the  beginning  comes  to 
its  full  significance  and  Aveight.  We  not  only 
infer  it  from  the  authority  of  express  precept  and 
example  going  before,  in  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
but  we  see  in  it  also  the  very  soul  and  spirit  of 
Christianity  itself,  actualizing  and  expounding  in 
a  living  way  the  sense  of  its  own  word.  If  it 
could  be  clearly  made  out  that  the  household 
baptisms  of  the  New  Testament  included  no  in- 
fants,— nay,  if  it  were  certain  that  the  Church  had 
no  apostolical  rule  whatever  in  the  case,  but  had 
gradually  settled  here  into  her  own  rule, — we 
should  hold  this  still  to  be  of  truly  divine  author- 
ity, and  the  baptism  of  infants  of  necessary  Chris- 
tian obligation,  as  the  only  proper  sense  and 
meaning  of  the  New  Testament  institution  inter- 
preted thus  to  its  full  depth  by  the  Christian  life 
itself." 

V.  But  we  propose  to  bring  the  matter  a  step 
nearer.  We  have  argued,  and,  we  think,  conclu- 
sively, that,  as  the  remedial  kingdom  avails  for 
infants,  and  as  baptism  is  the  appointed  token  or 
sign  which  is  to  accompany  such  effectual  relation 
to  Christ  and  his  saving  grace,  infants  are  to  be 
baptized.  We  will  now  undertake  to  show  that 
up  to   the   Christian   "reformation,"  by  express 


828  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

authority  of  God,  the  token  or  sign  of  his  gracious 
covenant  was  administered  to  infants. 

Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  It  is  monstrous  to  go  into  the 
Old  Testament  to  see  who  are  to  be  baptized." 
But  how  does  it  happen  that  he  saw  nothing 
monstrous  in  going  back  to  the  old  heathen  to  find 
out  what  baptism  is?  If  Jewish  ablutions  and 
heathen  classics  are  to  be  consulted  to  ascertain 
the  mode  of  baptism,  it  certainly  is  quite  legitimate 
to  consult  the  old  divine  law  of  Church-member- 
ship to  find  out  the  proper  subjects.  And  why  not 
go  back  to  the  Old  Testament?  Whatsoever 
things  were  written  aforetime  were  written  for 
our  learning.  The  Old  Testament  was  God's 
kingdom  just  as  really  and  truly  as  the  New.  It 
is  one  and  the  same  olive-tree,  from  which  the 
Jews  were  broken  off  and  the  Gentiles  grafted  in. 
(See  Romans  xi.  6-24.)  Whatever  ceremonial 
changes  and  constitutional  modifications  may  have 
been  made  by  the  Christian  "reformation,"  the 
spiritual  corporation  was  the  same.  The  pro- 
phets are  the  brethren  of  the  apostles.  The  true 
member  of  the  Jewish  or  patriarchal  Church  is  a 
part  of  the  same  household  in  which  the  tru,e 
Christian  is  found.  The  New  is  only  a  furtheV 
completion  of  the  Old.  And  if  we  can  find  an 
ancient  law  of  God  ordaining  infant  membership, 
it  must  be  shown  that  that  law  has  been  authori- 
tatively repealed  or  changed,  or  it  still  remains  to 
be  observed, — at  least,  as  to  its  spirit. 

The  first  form  of  the  kingdom  of  God  among 
men  was  the  patriarchal,  which  extended  from 
Adam  to  Abraham.     Under  that  system  the  family 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.        329 

was  the  Church  and  the  father  the  priest.  God 
then  had  no  visible  kingdom  but  that  which  existed 
in  the  domestic  constitution.  It  was  only  in  the 
household  economy,  and  in  what  appertained  to  its 
healthful  and  vigorous  condition,  that  men  came 
into  visible  relations  to  the  divine  kingdom  in  those 
days.  It  was  God's  own  arrangement.  That  it 
included  children  is  infallibly  certain ;  otherwise 
the  race  itself  must  have  ceased.  Here,  then,  we 
have  children  in  the  Church,  and  as  much  con- 
nected with  the  kingdom  of  God  as  their  grown 
brothers  or  their  fathers,  for  more  than  two  thousmid 
years. 

The  next  form  of  the  divine  kingdom  was  that 
which  held  from  the  calling  of  Abraham  to  Moses. 
This  connected  the  visible  Church  with  a  particular 
race  of  people,  the  outward  mark  of  which  was 
circumcision.  All  Abraham's  descendants  in  the 
line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  all  others  who  became 
permanently  identified  with  that  race,  having 
received  the  rite  of  circumcision,  constituted  God's 
visible  kingdom,  than  which  he  had  in  that  period 
no  other  kingdom  among  men.  Did  it  include 
infants?  Read  Genesis  xvii.  : — "And  God  said 
unto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant,  thou, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generations.  This 
is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep  between  me 
and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  :  every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised ;  and  it  shall  be  a 
token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And 
he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among 
you." 

Here,  then,  is  a  divine  law,  appointing  the  cir- 

28» 


330  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

cuincision  of  infants  as  parties  to  God's  gracious 
covenant  and  as  members  in  his  Church  as  it  then 
existed.  This  same  law  was  continued  through 
the  Mosaic  economy  down  to  the  time  of  Christ 
himself.  From  the  very  beginning  of  the  world, 
therefore,  God  has  admitted  children  to  his  visible 
kingdom,  and  appointed  that  they  should  receive 
the  signs  and  tokens  of  the  same.  Let  Baptists 
show  us  when  and  where  there  has  ever  been  an 
abrogation  of  the  spirit  of  these  regulations,  and 
we  will  submit  without  another  word.  If  this  law 
for  the  recognition  of  infant  membership  has  ever 
been  annulled,  the  record  of  it  can  be  found,  and 
may  be  produced.  But,  until  that  record  is  pro- 
duced, we  are  bound  to  receive  it  as  God's  own 
positive  law  that  our  infant  children  are  not  to  be 
denied  the  token  of  his  covenant. 

To  escape  the  force  of  this  argument,  at  once  so 
clear  and  satisfactory,  Dr.  Fuller  suggests  that 
"circumcision  was  no  seal  of  spiritual  blessings," 
and  that  it  referred  to  mere  temporal  immunities. 
In  this  he  differs  from  the  holy  Apostle  Paul.  We 
would  think  "the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith" 
a  spiritual  blessing;  and  Paul  says  that  Abraham 
"  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  A  seal  of  the 
RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  FAITH."  (Eom.  iii.  11.)  "We 
would  also  think  God's  engagement  to  be  a  God  to 
him,  and  to  his  seed  after  him,  involved  something 
of  spiritual  blessings ;  but  in  that  very  covenant 
circumcision  is  explicitly  appointed  and  ordained 
as  its  token  and  seal.  Dr.  Carson  is  constrained 
to  admit  that  "circumcision  and  baptism  corres- 
pond   in   meaning,"  and   that  "both  relate  to  the 


RELATIONS  OP  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.   331 

removal  of  sin,  the  one  by  cutting,  the  other  by 
washing."  (P.  229.)  Is  the  removal  of  sin  no 
spiritual  blessing  ?  Nay,  if  there  was  no  spiritual 
blessing  connected  with  the  covenant  of  which 
circumcision  was  the  token,  there  was  nothing 
spiritual  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  the  only  king- 
dom which  God  had  upon  earth  up  to  the  time 
when  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh."  So  extraordi- 
nary and  "  monstrous"  a  doctrine  cannot  be  enter- 
tained for  one  moment.  It  is  a  desperate  resort  to 
exclude  children  from  the  Church. 

But  our  Baptist  doctors  argue  that  the  circum- 
cision of  Jewish  children  could  have  had  no  refer- 
ence to  spiritual  blessings,  or  to  any  relation  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  because  "infants  cannot  have 
faith."  They  must  then  assume  that  infants  are 
infidels,  and  that  they  dare  not  be  reckoned  with 
the  Church-community, — which  we  have  shown 
to  be  contrary  to  all  reason  and  Scripture-facts. 
Nay,  to  deny  the  capacity  of  our  infants  to  receive 
spiritual  blessings  or  to  stand  in  full  connection 
with  the  divine  kingdom,  is  not  only  to  "  gainsay 
an  angel  from  heaven,"  but  to  gainsay  the  Son  of 
God  himself  "We  read  in  the  Gospels  that  "  little 
children,"  "young  children,"  "brephce — new-born 
babes" — were  brought  to  him,  that  he  should  put 
his  hands  on  them  and  pray;  and  his  disciples 
rebuked  them.  Perhaps  they  thought  with  our 
Baptist  friends  that  "the  gospel  has  nothing  to  do 
with  infants."  But  the  Savior  was  ^'much  dis- 
pleased" at  their  conduct,  and  said,  "  Suffer  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me :" 
Why?    Because  ''of  such    is    the    kingdom   os 


oSZ  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

HEAVEN."  (Matt.  xix.  13,  14.)  Now,  let  men  argue 
as  they  please,  and  adopt  what  principles  of  inter- 
pretation may  suit  them  best,  and  sneer  at  the 
incapacities  of  children  as  the  necessities  of  their 
creed  may  require :  the  Son  of  God  hero  assigns  to 
infants  an  interest  in  his  gospel  and  a  relation  to 
his  kingdom  as  real,  close,  and  effective  as  can  be 
claimed  for  any  adult,  whether  on  earth  or  in 
heaven.  "Of  such  is  the  kingdom."  There  it 
stands,  written  of  God,  clear  as  the  light,  firm  as 
the  world,  true  as  the  heart  of  Jesus.  With  such 
relations  to  the  kingdom  and  covenant,  circum- 
cision in  the  case  of  infants  must  take  a  meaning 
quite  as  deep  and  spiritual  as  that  allowed  to  it  in 
the  case  of  Abraham  himself 

We  will  not  pursue  our  Baptist  friends  into  their 
labyrinthine  disquisitions  upon  covenants.  We  will 
simply  remark,  that  if  the  covenant  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  the  token  was  in  no  way  a  spiritual 
covenant,  and  did  not  embrace  the  Church,  we 
challenge  and  defy  our  recusants  to  find  and  show 
any  visible  Church  on  earth  anterior  to  the  Savior's 
advent ;  and  that  the  formal  renewal  of  that  cove- 
nant in  the  29th  of  Deuteronomy  demonstrates 
its  spiritual  character,  including  Israel's  ''little 
ones"  along  with  their  parents  as  parties  to  the 
high  and  solemn  engagements. 

Thus,  then,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world 
until  the  institution  of  Christianity,  the  uniform 
and  positive  law  of  God  was  that  infants  stood  in 
the  same  relation  to  the  kingdom  and  covenant  of 
God  with  their  parents,  and  that  the  sign  and 
token  of  the  same  was  to  be  given  to  them  as  early 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.   333 

as  the  eighth  day  after  their  birth.  "We  have  found 
the  law  putting  infants  in  the  Church  and  connect- 
ing them  visibly  and  sacramentally  with  the  divine 
kingdom.  It  now  devolves  upon  our  opponents  to 
find  the  law  which  puts  them  out.  If  they  cannot 
l^roduce  such  a  law,  we  are  certainly  bound  in  all 
reason  and  conscience  to  consider  them  as  sustain- 
ing the  same  relations  to  the  kingdom  and  its 
visible  token  under  the  Christian  economy  which 
God  himself  gave  them  in  all  the  dispensations 
preceding  it. 

YI.  Nay,  we  go  still  further.  We  will  produce 
a  passage  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  which  shows  that, 
under  the  gospel,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  re- 
ception of  the  kingdom  on  the  part  of  little  chil- 
dren. We  read  in  Mark  x.  13-15,  "  They  brought 
young  children  unto  him,  and  his  disciples  rebuked 
them  that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it 
he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them.  Suffer 
the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them 
not :  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  1 
say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  king- 
dom OF  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein." 

We  observe,  then,  that  infants  may  come  to 
Christ.  He  himself  says,  let  them  come.  It  is 
therefore  possible  for  them  to  come. 

It  is  useless  for  Baptists  to  suggest  philosophical 
objections.  Christ  says  it;  and  his  words  are  not 
to  be  revised  and  amended  by  the  philosophies  of 
ignorant  and  erring  men.  There  is  such  a  thing  as 
tJie  coming  of  babes  to  Jesus.     This  is  "a  nail  in  a 


334  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXxiMINED. 

sure  place,"  which  must  hold  even  to  the  day  of 
doom.  "That  children  are  capable  of  being 
brought  to  Christ  and  blessed  by  him  is  clearly 
established  by  this  passage/'  says  Mr.  Carson  him- 
self. And  so  Alexander  Campbell: — "Whatever 
the  character  of  these  little  children  may  have 
been,  they  came  to  him."  We  will  not  press  the 
fact  that  the  phrase  coming  to  Christ  signifies  what- 
ever is  implied  in  becoming  a  Christian;  and  so 
baptism  also.  If  this  is  the  meaning  to  be  attached 
to  it  in  this  place,  our  case  is  made  out,^ — that 
infants  are  capable  of  discipleship,  and  are  there- 
fore to  be  christened  by  baptism.  But  if  this  is 
not  to  be  taken  as  its  import  in  this  connection,  it 
must  still  express  a  relation  to  and  an  interest  in 
Christ  Avhich  must  needs  identify  them  with  the 
Church,  and  so  entitle  them  to  the  sign  and  seal 
of  such  relationship. 

But  the  point  which  we  desire  more  particularly 
to  present  is  in  the  latter  part  of  this  remarkable 
text.  Three  things  are  here  asserted:  first,  that 
infants  are  receivers  of  the  kingdom  of  God; 
second,  that  they  so  completely  receive  the  king- 
'Sv?dom  of  God  as  to  be  models  for  all  receivers  of  it; 
and,  third,  that  adults  must  receive  it  just  the 
same  as  little  children,  or  they  never  can  enter 
into  it.  "Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  king- 
dom of  God  AS  A  LITTLE  CHILD  [rcccivcs  it],  he  shall 
not  enter  therein.  .  .  .  Except  ye  be  converted  and 
become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

How,  then,  do  little  children  receive  the  king- 
dom of  God?     That  they  do  receive  it,  the  Son  of 


RELATIONS  OF  INFANTS  TO  THE  KINGDOM.      33.5 

God  is  witness.  How  do  they  receive  it?  Can  any- 
one be  said  to  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  under 
the  gospel  without  at  the  same  time  being  a 
proper  subject  for  baptism  ?  Nay,  further :  can  any 
one  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  at  all,  in  any 
visible  and  tangible  respect,  without  being  bap- 
tized? As  the  Church  was  constituted  under  the 
old  dispensation,  the  reception  of  the  kingdom 
and  promise  was  linked  to  circumcision;  and  no 
male  infant  could,  in  strict  language,  be  said  to 
have  received  the  kingdom  until  circumcision  was 
performed.  The  reception  of  the  kingdom  now 
is  just  as  intimately  linked  with  baptism.  ''Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  op  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  are 
Christ's  own  words.  In  the  certain  fact,  then, 
attested  as  it  is  by  the  Son  of  God,  that  infants 
under  the  gospel  are  receivers  of  the  kingdom, 
and,  as  such,  the  models  of  all  effectual  re- 
ceptions of  the  kingdom,  their  baptism  is  neces- 
sarily implied. 

VII.  Nay,  more:  thepresentations  made  in  point- 
ing to  children  in  their  reception  of  the  kingdom 
as  the  models  according  to  Avhich  alone  the  king- 
dom can  be  effectually  received  carry  with  them 
this  certain  implication : — that,  unless  every  bap- 
tism 18  essentially  an  INFANT   BAPTISM,  IT   IS  NO 

AVAILING  BAPTISM  AT  ALL.  The  kingdom  must 
be  received  as  little  children  receive  it;  the  man 
must  be  converted  and  become  as  a  little  child,  or 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  for  him.  Dr.  Carson 
himself  admits  that  "every  believer  must  be  as  a 


336  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

little  child."  All  unregenerated  adults  must  undo 
their  whole  lives,  and  return  again  to  infancy  to 
start  afresh  on  the  same  level  with  babes,  to  the 
same  absence  of  unbelief,  unteachableness,  and  dis- 
obedience with  which  an  infant  is  brought  to  the 
font,  or  there  can  be  no  availing  baptism  and  no 
salvation. 

Let  the  reader  weigh  these  thoughts;  let  him 
consider  how  the  Lord  of  the  Church  here  requires 
all  baptisms  to  be  essentially  infant  baptisms;  let 
him  grasp  what  is  implied  in  a  right  reception  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  the  model  of  which  Christ 
himself  finds  in  little  children;  and  how  he  can 
rid  himself  of  the  conclusion  that  our  infants  are 
proper  subjects  of  Christian  baptism  we  are  at  a 
loss  to  see.  Shall  the  lips  of  Infinite  "Wisdom  pro- 
nounce them  possessed  of  all  that  is  demanded  in 
a  proper  reception  of  the  kingdom  on  the  part  of 
adults,  and  yet  we  reject  them  as  unfit  to  receive 
the  kingdom  themselves?  Shall  Jesus  press  them 
to  his  loving  heart,  declaring  that  "0/  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God,"  and  we  refuse  to  them  his  own 
appointed  sign  of  acceptance  and  token  of  his 
saving  mercy?  Shall  the  Son  of  God  bid  them 
welcome  to  his  arras  and  blessing  as  his  choicest 
jewels,  and  the  eternal  heavens  stand  open  to 
admit  them,  and  we  undertake  to  say  that  they 
are  unfit  to  be  rated  even  with  his  weakest  and 
frailest  disciples?  Before  we  will  give  consent  to 
a  system  so  discordant  with  the  words  and  heart 
of  the  blessed  Savior,  let  this  right  hand  forget 
her  cunning,  and  this  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
the  mouth  which  contains  it ! 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  337 

Now,  honestly  and  candidly  taking  together 
this  whole  subject  of  the  relation  of  our  babes  to 
the  remedial  kingdom,  its  signs  and  tokens  under 
former  dispensations,  and  the  positive  declarations 
of  its  King  with  children  in  his  arms,  we  regard  it 
as  impossible  to  doubt  the  divinity  of  infant  bap- 
tism, or  to  question  the  propriety  of  the  common 
Church-practice,  from  the  beginning  until  now,  of 
administering  this  holy  sacrament  to  all  who  can 
justly  be  regarded  as  in  the  position  of  learners  in 
Jesus,  including  our  babes  as  well  as  all  who  by 
repentance  and  conversion  become  like  them. 


CHAPTEE  XXIV. 

INFANT    BAPTISM   PRACTICED   BY   THE   APOSTLES. 

We  have  now  shown  that  infant  baptism  is  no 
sin;  that  it  is  not  prohibited  by  the  commission; 
and  that  the  relation  of  our  children  to  the  king- 
dom of  God  implies  and  demands  it.  Certainly, 
if  infants  are  to  be  numbered  with  Christ's  re- 
deemed, and  are  so  far  the  subjects  of  gospel 
grace  as  to  be  saved,  and  are  possessed  of  qualities 
rendering  them  in  the  Savior's  eyes  the  very 
models  of  what  disciples  of  Christ  must  be,  they 
are  to  be  rated  among  those  who  are  to  receive 
the  marks,  signs,  and  acknowledgments  of  disciple- 
ship,  and  are  to  be  baptized.  In  all  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  inspired  volume  there  is  not 

29 


838  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

one  syllable,  in  the  form  of  command,  precept, 
explanation,  caution,  or  example,  to  prevent  the 
solemn  charge  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations, 
from  extending  to  little  babes  as  well  as  to  men  in 
the  maturity  of  life.  And  when  we  consider  that 
this  charge  was  given  to  Jews,  with  whom  it  was 
a  divinely  appointed  thing  in  religious  matters  to 
extend  to  children  the  same  rites  and  ordinances 
enjoyed  by  themselves, — that  it  was  delivered  to 
those  very  men  whom  its  Author  rebuked  in  so 
much  displeasure  when  in  a  mistaken  zeal  they 
sought  to  prevent  children  from  being  brought  to 
him, — and  that  he  had  in  the  most  explicit  and 
impressive  manner  previously  referred  to  little 
children  as  model  subjects  of  his  kingdom, — the 
evidence  is  perfectly  conclusive  that  when  he  said 
^'all  nations"  he  meant  what  he  said,  and  that  it  is 
his  will  that  all  the  constituents  of  a  nation  that 
can  by  any  means  be  made  learners  in  him  should 
be  regarded  as  rightful  subjects  of  baptism.  So 
that  it  is  not  without  solid  foundation  that  the 
distinguished  Danish  Dr.  Martinson  has  said,  ''The 
more  infant  baptism  prevails  in  the  world,  the 
more  are  the  words  of  the  Lord  fulfilled,  that  the 
7iations  should  be  made  discij^Ies  by  baptism  and 
instruction." 

But,  if  all  this  does  not  satisfy  the  reader  that 
infants  are  among  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
we  have  another  and  more  direct  sort  of  argument, 
■which  will  admit  of  no  evasion. 

All  must  agree  that  the  inspired  apostles  under- 
stood the  scope  and  nature  of  the  great  commis- 
sion which  the  ascending  Savior  delivered  to  them. 


APOSTOLIC    PUACTICE.  S39 

and  that  their  practice  under  that  command  must 
be  taken  as  a  conclusive  and  final  explanation  of 
what  the  Savior  meant.  If  they  baptized  child- 
ren, we  are  bound  to  conclude  that  Christ  meant 
that  children  should  be  baptized,  and  that  we  also 
ought  to  see  to  it  that  their  baptism  be  not 
neglected. 

The  question,  then,  arises.  Did  the  apostles 

BAPTIZE    LITTLE    CHILDREN?      As    WC    CXpCCt    tO    be. 

judged  by  the  all-knowing  God,  we  believe  that 
they  did,  and  will  now  proceed  to  give  what  we 
regard  as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact. 

I.  There  is  not  a  single  instance  in  all  the  New 
Testament  in  which  any  one  who  had  grown  up 
from  childhood  as  a  member  of  a  Christian  house- 
hold was  ever  baptized  in  adult  life.  Upon  this 
point  wo  will  give  the  substance  of  Professor  Wil- 
son's acute  observations.  Baptists  afiirm  that 
there  is  no  instance  of  infant  baptism  furnished  in 
Scripture.  We  shall  examine  that  matter  more 
at  length  presently.  What  we  propose  here  to 
Insist  on  is,  that  no  adult  baptism,  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  repudiated  by  us  and  maintained  as  a 
distinctive  tenet  by  our  recusants,  can  be  shown  in 
the  word  of  God. 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  The  terms  adult 
baptism  are  used  with  two  different  applications; 
one  denoting  the  ordinance  as  administered  to  a 
Christian  convert  from  another  faith  or  a  heathen 
condition,  the  other  embracing  only  the  case  of 
children  who  have  grown  up  under  Christian 
training  but  are  denied  baj)ti8m  except  in  case  of 


340  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

a  personal  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  Now,  as 
to  the  baptism  of  a  convert  from  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion, or  from  heathenism,  or  from  the  unin- 
structed  and  ungodly  world,  there  is  no  difference 
between  us  and  Baptists.  We  all  contend  that 
such  a  one  must  be  baptized.  It  presents  no  dis- 
tinctive feature  of  the  Baptist  system  any  more 
than  of  ours.  It  is  therefore  to  be  cancelled,  as  a 
common  quantity,  arguing  nothing  on  either  side. 
As  to  those  scrijitural  instances  on  which  Baptists 
lean  so  confidently  for  an  exclusively  adult  baj)- 
tism,  we  are  prepared  to  show  that,  without  a 
single  excej)tion,  they  were  administered  to  con- 
verts from  Judaism  or  idolatry.  They  present 
the  common  ground  which  we  hold  alike  with  our 
Baptist  friends.  What  we  affirm,  then,  is,  that 
apart  from  these  there  is  not  a  solitary  example 
of  adult  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.  If  there 
be  such  an  instance,  the  industry  of  Baptists  can 
produce  it.  We  challenge  them  to  do  so.  And  until 
they  do  so,  they  remain  in  the  unenviable  position 
of  making  that  a  distinctive  feature  of  Christianity 
which  puts  the  children  of  Christian  parent- 
age and  training  on  a  level  "with  Pharisees,  idola- 
ters, and  worldlings,  and  deals  with  them  in  a  way 
which  has  no  parallel  in  the  word  of  God,  or  in 
all  the  transactions  of  his  inspired  servants. 

Now,  the  utter  silence  of  the  Scriptures  as  to 
any  adult  baptisms  of  such  as  have  grown  up  in 
the  Church  under  all  the  influences  of  Chris- 
tianity from  early  childhood,  is  a  matter  of  no 
small  importance.  It  is  useless  for  Baptists  to 
say  that  the  period  of  Scripture   history  is  too 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  341 

short  to  produce  such  instances.  It  extends  over 
from  five  to  thirty  years.  If  this  was  not  time 
enough  to  produce  them,  they  must  be  of  very 
slow  growth.  If  it  was  the  custom  of  the  apos- 
tolic age  to  withhold  baptism  from  the  infant 
children  of  the  multitudes  of  converts,  and  to  let 
those  children  grow  up  sustaining  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  Church  as  the  heathen,  it  must  be 
regarded  as  very  remarkable  and  unaccountable 
that  not  one  instance  can  be  found  of  the  baptism 
of  any  of  this  large  and  interesting  class  in  after- 
life. Either  there  were  such  adult  baptisms  or 
th^re  were  not.  If  there  were,  then  the  mere 
silence  of  Scripture  is  not  to  be  held  as  disproving 
their  existence,  any  more  than  the  mere  silence 
of  Scripture  could  disprove  the  existence  of  infant 
baptism.  But  if  there  were  no  such  cases,  then 
the  children  in  question  must  have  been  either 
baptized  in  infancy  or  altogether  exempted  from 
submission  to  the  ordinance.  We  are  reluctant 
in  any  case  to  rest  an  affirmative  on  the  mere 
silence  of  a  document;  and  yet  the  Baptist  can 
show  no  better  foundation  for  this  distinctive 
feature  of  his  system.  With  respect  to  infants, 
we  do  not  undertake  to  stand  upon  such  ground. 
We  claim  that  the  Scriptures  do  speak  upon  the 
subject,  pointedly  and  clearly;  but,  as  to  the 
adult  baptism  of  the  children  of  believers,  there  is 
not  a  case  of  it  in  all  the  records  of  apostolic  history. 
Baptists  themselves  have  been  forced  to  acknowl- 
edge this.  "I  admit,"  says  Eev.  Baptist  Noel, 
"  that  there  are  no  instances  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  where  the  persons  baptized  are  said  to 

29* 


342  THE   BAPTIST   S^STKM   EXAMINED. 

be  the  children  of  believing  parents."  (On  Bap- 
tism, p.  232.)  The  absence,  then,  of  any  such 
case  must  be  taken  as  a  strong  presumption  that 
such  children  were  baptized  in  infancy.  (See 
Wilson  on  Inf.  Bapt.  chap,  ix.) 

II.  We  can  trace  infant  baptism  back  to  the 
days  of  the  apostles, — which  demands  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  was  performed  with  their  sanction, 
if  not  with  their  own  hands. 

It  is  certain,  from  their  own  testimony,  that 
the  apostles  Avero  at  great  pains  to  establish 
means  of  conveying  their  directions,  injunctions,  or 
traditions  to  succeeding  generations.  Peter  says, 
"I  will  endeavor  that  after  my  decease  you 
make  mention  of  these  things,"  and  thereby  per- 
petuate the  remembrance  of  them.  (2  Epistle  i. 
15.)  Paul  says,  "  The  things  which  thou  hast 
heard  of  me  [dia']  for  the  purpose  of  instructing  many 
witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men, 
who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also."  (2  Tim.  ii. 
2.)  With  these  facts  before  us,  all  must  admit 
that  the  testimony  of  the  men  who  lived  near  the 
aj)OStolic  age  must  be  of  very  great  weight  in 
helping  to  decide  what  was  apostolic  practice.  It 
is  useless  to  argue  a  point  so  self-evident.  Mr. 
Alexander  Campbell  agrees  that  "the  views  and 
practices  of  those  who  were  the  cotemporaries  or 
the  pupils  of  the  apostles  and  their  immediate 
successors  may  be  adduced  as  corroborating  evi- 
dence of  the  truths  taught  and  the  practices 
enjoined  by  the  apostles,  and  as  such  may  be 
cited." 


APOSTOLIC  PUACTICE.  343 

It  is  also  agreed,  even  by  the  most  rabid  railers 
against  infant  baptism,  that  this  has  been  an 
established  thing  in  all  the  great  divisions  of  the 
Church  since  the  fourth  century.  Augustine 
flourished  at  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  his  testimony  is  direct  to  the  point  that  the 
baptizing  of  infants  was  then  the  common  prac- 
tice, and  that  it  was  apostolica  traditio, — a  thing 
derived  from  the  apostles.  His  words  are,  "If 
anj^  one  do  ask  for  divine  authority  in  this  mat- 
ter, that  which  the  whole  Church  practices,  and 
which  has  not  been  instituted  by  councils,  but 
was  ever  in  use,  is  very  reasonably  believed  to  be 
no  other  than  a  thing  delivered  [or  ordered]  by 
or  from  the  apostles."  (i)e  Bapt.  cont.  Donat.) 

Chrysostom  lived  at  the  same  time  and  left  a 
similar  testimony.  A  half-generation  earlier  lived 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  heartily  shames  the  mo- 
ther who  hesitated  to  bring  her  child  to  be  bap- 
tized because  of  its  tender  age,  urging  that  ''Han- 
nah consecrated  Samuel  to  God  before  his  birth 
and  devoted  him  to  the  priesthood  as  soon  as  he 
was  bom,"  and  that  "so  children  should  be  baptized 
in  their  tenderest  age,  though  having  yet  no  idea  of 
perdition  or  grace."  About  the  year  250  there 
lived  a  certain  minister  by  the  name  of  Fidus, 
who  was  somewhat  squeamish  about  baptizing 
new-born  babes,  because  he  was  expected  to  kiss 
them  after  baptizing  them.  He  therefore  brought 
it  before  a  council  of  sixty-six  bishops  to  decide 
whether  baptism,  for  the  sake  of  decency,  ought 
not  to  be  denied  to  infants  until  after  they  were 
eight  days  old.     The  question  shows  at  once  that 


344  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

infant  baptism  was  then  the  common  practice, 
and  the  council,  with  the  martyr  Cyprian  at  its 
head,  at  once  unanimously  declared  that  "the 
mercyand  grace  of  God  are  to  be  denied  to  none 
from  the  moment  he  is  born,"  and  that,  as  bap- 
tism is  not  denied  to  the  greatest  offenders  M'hen 
they  come  to  believe,  so  it  certainly  is  not  to  be 
arbitrarily  withheld  from  a  new-born  babe,  which 
has  no  crimes. 

Origcn  was  born  in  185  and  died  in  254.  He 
was  a  distinguished  man  and  possessed  many  un- 
common advantages.  His  father,  grandfather, 
and  great-grandfather  all  were  Christians.  At 
the  most  moderate  reckoning,  his  great-grand- 
father lived  within  twelve  years  of  the  death  of 
Mark  and  about  twenty  years  cotemporaneous 
with  the  Apostle  John.  For  nearly  a  hundred 
years  the  Origen  family  had  lived  with  the  apos- 
tles and  their  immediate  successors  and  the  other 
"faithful  men,"  some  of  whom  must  yet  have  been 
alive  in  Origen's  time.  He  also  traveled  ex- 
tensively, visited  various  apostolic  Churches,  and 
resided  in  many  of  them,  in  order  the  most  fully 
to  inform  himself  respecting  whatever  accounts 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  still  preserved. 
And  it  is  simply  impossible,  under  such  circum- 
stances, that  the  practice  of  the  Church,  derived 
from  the  apostles,  in  a  matter  of  daily  occurrence, 
could  have  been  forgotten,  or  have  suffered  such  a 
radical  change,  without  his  having  been  aware 
of  it.  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  says,  "  Origen  is 
a  competent  witness  in  any  question  of  fact." 
What,  then,  is  his  testimony  ?    It  is  that  "  The 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  345 

Church  RECEIVED  FROM  THE  APOSTLES  the  injunction 
\traditio]  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants,  ac- 
cording TO  the  saying  op  our  Lord  concerning 
INFANTS."  {Orig.  in  Rom.  lib.  5,  cap.  6,  p.  543.) 
Again :  in  his  homily  on  Leviticus,  he  says, 
''  Whereas  the  baptism  of  the  Church  is  given  for 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  infants  also  are,  by  the 
usage  of  the  Church,  baptized." 

A  little  earlier  than  Origen  lived  Tertullian, 
who  was  the  first  opposer  of  infant  baptism  that 
has  ever  been  heard  of  But  his  very  opposition 
proves  that  it  was  a  common  thing  in  his  day.  He 
certainly  would  not  have  undertaken  to  wage  war 
against  a  mere  phantom.  ]So  sane  man  would 
preach  reform  in  a  thing  that  never  existed.  And 
yet,  as  early  as  the  conclusion  of  the  second 
century,  within  eighty  years  of  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  we  find  him  inveighing  against  the  bap- 
tizing of  infants  as  the  great  defect  of  the  age,  and 
therefore  a  custom  as  wide-spread  as  Christendom 
itself.  At  that  period  men  were  still  living  who 
were  bom  before  the  apostles  all  were  dead.  And 
how  does  it  happen  that  in  one  lifetime  from  the 
apostles  a  practice  which  Baptists  tell  us  is  such 
a  dreadful  apostasy  from  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
and  the  example  of  his  inspired  servants,  should 
thus  have  established  itself  in  every  Church  all 
over  the  Christian  world?  If  this  was  an  innova- 
tion; if  it  was  so  contrary  to  apostolic  injunction 
and  example;  if  it  was  the  introduction  of  such  a 
dreadful  scourge,  at  war  with  all  the  inculcations 
of  the  Son  of  God, — where  were  John  the  apostle, 
and  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  the  "faithful  men," 


346  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

able  to  teach  others  also?  Where  were  Polycarp, 
and  Irenaeus,  and  Barnabas,  and  Hermas,  that 
not  one  of  them  ever  rose  up  to  rebuke  and  ex- 
pose the  delusion  of  those  who  would  thus  for- 
sake the  commandment  of  God  for  an  ordinance 
of  man?  Indeed,  the  very  arguments  which  Ter- 
tullian  employed  against  infant  baptism  show  that 
he  himself  considered  it  impossible  to  deny  its 
apostolic  origin,  and  felt  all  the  time  that  he  was 
laboring  to  introduce  a  new  practice.  He  believed 
that  baptism  was  the  washing  away  of  sins;  and 
his  great  argument  was  that  it  should  be  delayed 
until  the  periods  of  greater  temptation  had  passed, 
lest  by  sinning  after  baptism  there  would  be  found 
no  more  remission.  This  was  the  foundation  of 
all  his  opposition,  and  led  him  to  oppose  the  bap- 
tism of  unmaiTied  grown  people  as  well  as  little 
children.  But,  if  the  baptizing  of  infants  was  an 
antichristian  innovation,  there  was  another  argu- 
ment within  his  reach,  and  which  he  must  needs 
have  hit  upon,  far  more  conclusive  than  this. 
"Why  did  he  not  brand  the  practice  as  a  novelty 
and  fiction  of  the  day?  Why  did  he  not  declare  it 
to  be  a  thing  unknown  to  the  apostles  and  apos- 
tolic Churches?  Why  did  he  not  say  that  it  was 
not  so  from  the  beginning?  If  it  was  an  innova- 
tion, there  were  men  then  living  within  whoso 
recollection  it  was  introduced.  Why,  then,  did 
he  not  appeal  to  them  and  say,  "  The  traditions  of 
the  apostles  were  delivered  to  your  grandfathers: 
ask  them  3  for  they  know  and  will  tell  you  that 
baptism  was  never  designed  for  infants"?  Such 
an  argument  would  have  been   conclusive.      It 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  347 

would  have  ended  the  question  and  given  triumph 
to  his  opposition.  Why  did  he  not  use  it?  It  is 
evident  that  he  could  not.  And  the  simple  fact 
that  he  passes  it  in  silence,  reasoning  only  from 
his  own  principles,  shows  that  anti-pedobaptism 
was  no  stronger  in  its  resources  then  than  now, 
and  that  the  baptizing  of  infants  is  a  practice  as 
certainly  derived  from  the  apostles  as  the  Church 
itself, 

Polycarp  was  the  pupil  of  the  Apostle  John, 
and  lrena>u8  was  the  disciple  of  Polycarp.  At  an 
advanced  age  Irenseus  says  of  his  teacher,  ''I 
remember  his  discourses  to  the  people  concerning 
the  conversations  he  had  with  John  the  apostle 
and  others  who  had  seen  the  Lord;  how  he  re- 
hearsed their  discourses,  and  what  he  heard  them 
that  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  Life  say 
of  our  Lord  and  of  his  miracles  and  doctrine." 
This  shows  that  Polycarp  had  used  his  oppoi-tuni- 
ties.  He  was  himself  master  of  whatever  was  to 
be  known.  He  had  been  careful  to  tell  all  that  he 
knew  of  our  Lord  or  the  apostles  and  of  their 
doctrine  and  practice.  These  discourses  had  made 
a  deep  and  unfading  impression  on  the  mind  of 
Irenffius.  And  Irenajus  was  yet  a  living  teacher 
when  Tertullian  broached  his  doctrine  for  the 
delay  of  baptism  until  the  season  of  severest 
temptation  was  past.  If  infant  baptism  had  not 
been  sanctioned  by  the  example  of  the  apostles, 
Irenaeus  must  have  known  it,  and  Tertullian 
might  have  appealed  to  him  and  settled  the 
question.  Or,  if  Tertullian's  doctrine  had  had 
apostolic  sanction,   Irenseus  certainly   could   not 


348  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

have  been  ignorant  of  it,  and  would  have  sup- 
ported the  attempted  reformation  of  his  neighbor. 
But  the  teachings  of  Tertullian  were  dead-born 
and  fell  lifeless  upon  the  ear  of  the  Church. 

Nay,  Irenaius,  so  far  from  presenting  infant 
baptism  as  opposed  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles 
and  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  has  left  a  passage  on 
record  which,  though  much  debated,  supports  the 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism  against  all  the  ingenuity 
and  learning  that  have  been  marshaled  to  break 
its  force,  and  assigns  it  a  place  in  the  very 
marrow  of  the  gospel.  "  Christ,"  says  he,  "  came 
to  save  all, — all  who  by  him  are  re-born  of  God, 
INFANTS,  LITTLE  ones,  children,  youths,  and  per- 
sons of  mature  age :  therefore  he  passed  through  these 
several  ages."  The  relevancy  of  this  passage  rests 
upon  the  phrase  "re-born  of  God," — renascuntur  m 
Deum.  We  maintain  that  it  refers  to  baptism,  and 
that  Irenseus  here  recognizes  the  baptism  of  "in- 
fants, little  ones,  and  children,"  as  well  as  persons 
of  mature  age.  Baptists  insist  that  it  means 
"spiritual  regeneration,"  "conversion  to  God," 
"  moral  renewal  in  Christ."  Dr.  Fuller  thinks 
that  "Professor  Sears  has  settled  forever  this 
matter  by  an  elaborate  investigation  of  the  works 
of  Irenffius."  What  Mr.  Sears  has  said  we  are 
not  informed;  but  we  have  before  us  Dr.  Chase's 
tract  on  the  subject,  which  Dr.  Fuller  pronounces 
"viost  learned"  and  founded  upon  the  "reading 
and  re-reading  of  every  line  of  all  the  extant 
works  of  Irenseus."  And  if  Professor  Sears  has 
done  as  much  toward  the  settlement  of  the  matter 
as  Dr.  Chase,  it  is  in  a  different  direction  from 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  349 

that  supposed  by  either  of  them.  After  all  his 
"  elaborate  investigation/'  Dr.  Chase  says,  "  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  admit  that  Irenseus  sometimes  speaks 
of  regeneration  as  being  connected  with  baptism."  "We 
also  learn  from  this  tract  that  Irenseus  calls  the  com- 
mission to  make  disciples  by  baptism  "  the  authority 
of  regeneration  unto  God/' — not  the  power  to  re- 
new men's  spiritual  nature,  for  no  man  can  do  that, 
but  the  right  to  administer  baptism.  This  too  is 
precisely  the  phrase  used  in  our  quotation.  In  the 
same  tract  we  also  find  that  Irenasus  calls  "the 
one  healing  remedy  by  which  our  sins  are  re- 
moved," "  logiko  baptismata, — a  discriminate  or  pro- 
per baptism."  The  Gnostics,  who  taught  a  salva- 
tion by  mere  internal  illumination,  he  denounced 
as  "men  sent  by  Satan  to  deny  the  baptism 
of  regeneration  unto  God."  The  baptismal  applica- 
tion of  water  to  the  body  he  calls  the  "  regeneration 
of  the  flesh."  How,  then,  dare  Dr.  Fuller  say  that 
when  Irenffius  speaks  of  infants  being  ^'re-born  unto 
God"  or  " regenerated  of  God,"  he  means  spiritual 
renovation  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  baptism? 
Dr.  Chase  expressly  testifies  that,  "  in  some  degree, 
at  least,  he  [Irenceus']  confounded  the  sign  with  the 
thing  signified, — confounded  baptism  with  regenera- 
tion;" and,  if  he  confounded  them  at  all,  where  is 
the  evidence  that  he  viewed  them  distinct  from 
each  other  in  this  quotation?  Our  opponents 
themselves  being  witness,  Irenajus  over  and  over 
again,  in  multiform  profusion,  calls  baptism  re- 
generation, our  renatus  in  Deum,  our  re-birth  to  God. 
Alexander  Campbell — perhaps  the  most  competent 
witness  on  that  point  in  the  Baptist  world — says, 

30 


850  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

"All  the  apostolical  Fathers,  as  they  are  called,  all 
the  pupils  of  the  apostles,  and  all  the  ecclesiastical 
writers  of  note  of  the  first  four  centuries,  whose 
writings  have  come  down  to  us,  allude  to  and 
speak  of  Christian  immersion  [baptism]  as  the 
regeneration  and  remission  of  sins  spoken  of  in  the 
New  Testament.  ...  I  am  assured  that  they  used 
the  term  regenerated  as  equivalent  to  immersion 
[baptism],  and  spake  of  the  spiritual  change  under 
other  terms  and  modes  of  speech."  (Debate  with 
Eice,  pp.  416,  430.) 

When  Irenaeus  therefore  comes  to  speak  of 
"  INFANTS,  and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths, 
and  persons  of  mature  age,"  all  as  regenerated, — 
"re-born  of  God"  to  salvation  in  Jesus  Christ, — it 
is  useless  for  Baptists  or  anybody  else  to  tell  us 
that  the  passage  has  no  allusion  to  baptism. 

But  suppose  we  take  the  Baptist  theory, — that 
the  phrase  means  spiritual  regeneration,  conversion 
to  God,  and  moral  renewal  in  Christ.  Will  that 
take  from  the  passage  its  testimony  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism  ?  Can  we  put  asunder  what  God 
hath  joined  together?  If  "  infants,  and  little  ones, 
and  children"  are  spiritually  regenerated,  con- 
verted to  God,  and  renewed  in  Christ, — and 
Irenseus  looked  upon  them  in  this  light, — would 
or  could  he  have  consistently  denied  to  them  the 
outward  sign  and  sacrament  of  these  sublime 
spiritual  transactions  ?  If  infants  are  the  subjects 
of  all  these  inward  experiences,  and  are  "  re-born 
of  God,"  are  they  not  disciples  of  Christ,  and  to  be 
marked  as  disciples  according  to  the  Savior's  com- 
mand ?     So  that  whether  Irenseus  meant  spiritual 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  351 

regeneration  or  not,  baptism  is  inevitably  impli- 
cated, and  goes  along  with  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  as  certainly  as  the  shadow  follows  the  sub- 
stance. Dr.  Neander  says  that ''  in  Irenseus  bap- 
tism and  regeneration  are  intimately  connected," 
and  that  "it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  term 
regeneration  can  be  employed,  in  reference  to  this 
age,  to  denote  any  thing  else  than  baptism."  He 
therefore  regards  this  passage  as  presenting  dii'cct 
and  incontrovertible  proof  of  the  existence  of  infant 
baptism  in  the  time  of  Irenajus.  But  if  this  regene- 
ration (renascunter  in  Deum)  does  not  denote  bap- 
tism, it  certainly  does  denote  every  thing  that  can 
entitle  a  man  to  baptism.  In  either  case  "  infants 
and  little  ones"  are  designated  as  proper  subjects 
of  baptisni ;  and  that  by  a  man  of  God  who  received 
the  apostolic  traditions  from  a  companion  and 
pupil  of  him  who  lay  closest  to  the  Savior's  heart. 
Can  any  one  doubt,  then,  as  to  the  views  and  prac- 
tices of  the  apostles  on  this  subject  ? 

Justin  Martyr  lived  still  nearer  to  the  time  of 
the  apostles.  In  one  of  his  Apologies,  written 
about  the  year  148,  he  says  there  were  among 
Christians  in  his  time  many  persons  of  both  sexes, 
some  sixty  and  some  seventy  years  old,  who  had 
been  made  disciples  to  Christ  from  their  infancy  and 
continued  undefiled  all  their  lives.  If  these  persons 
were  made  disciples  in  infancy,  they  were  baptized 
in  infancy.  If  they  were  baptized  but  twenty 
years  before  Justin  was  born,  they  were  baptized 
before  all  the  apostles  were  dead;  and  we  thus 
have  infant  baptism  carried  up  to  the  very  lifetime 
of  the  apostles.    And  if  infant  baptism  was  prac- 


852  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

ticed  whilst  the  apostles  jei  lived,  who  can  say 
that  it  was  without  apostolic  sanction'/  Dr.  Fuller 
says  that  Justin  in  this  passage  does  not  allude  to 
baptism.  But,  as  one  assertion  is  as  good  in  the 
way  of  proof  as  another,  we  say  he  does  refer  to 
baptism,  and  in  the  very  words  of  the  commission. 
And  Dr.  Neander  says  that  he  here,  "beyond  ques- 
tion, refers  to  baptism."  How  indeed  can  infants 
be  made  disciples  to  Christ,  according  to  the  com- 
mission, but  by  baptism? 

Dr.  Fuller  professes  to  quote  assertions  from 
sundry  modern  authors  to  the  effect  that  there 
were  no  infant  baptisms  in  the  first  two  centuries. 
We  have  already  had  some  interesting  specimens 
of  his  way  of  quoting  authorities;  and  the  facts 
here  are  of  very  much  the  same  sort.  The  point 
which  he  endeavors  to  sustain  is,  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  a  mere  human  invention,  cori-uptly  intro- 
duced into  the  Church  long  after  the  apostles  were 
in  their  graves.  To  this  point  he  refers  to  several 
neologians  of  Germany,  as  if  they  were  competent 
witnesses  in  the  case,  and  to  several  other  writers, 
such  as  Baumgartcn,  Olshausen,  and  Neander,  as 
if  they  believed  and  taught  that  infant  baptism  is 
a  mere  device  of  men,  unauthorized  by,  and  a  mise- 
rable perversion  of,  the  gospel,  when  it  is  a  notorious 
fact  that  they  defended  and  practiced  it  themselves, 
as  a  thing  lying  in  the  very  soul  and  life  of  Chris- 
tianity. Dr.  Fuller's  mode  of  quoting  authorities 
makes  knaves  and  fools  of  some  of  the  best  and 
most  consistent  men  who  have  lived  to  adorn  and 
bless  the  Church  by  their  piety  and  wisdom. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  some  writers 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  353 

have  uttered  themselves  as  incredulous  upon  the 
subject  of  the  apostolicity  of  infant  baptism,  and 
that  their  names  stand  upon  the  Baptist  side  of 
this  question.  But  it  is  also  true  that  a  far  greater 
number  of  men,  as  competent  as  they  to  tell  us 
where  the  truth  on  this  question  lies,  including  the 
most  patient  and  thorough  investigators  of  the 
original  sources  of  evidence,  take  the  gi-ound  that 
infant  baptism  is  a  thing  warranted  by  the  Scrip- 
tures of  truth,  practiced  in  the  apostolic  times, 
and  handed  down  to  us  from  those  whom  Christ 
himself  ordained  to  be  the  founders  of  his  Church 
and  the  expositors  of  his  holy  institutes.  Among 
these  we  may  mention  Yossius,  Luther,  Gerhard, 
Chemnitz,  Quenstedt,  Baier,  Forbes,  Hammond, 
Walker,  Dupin,  Bingham,  and  Wall, — names  that 
will  stand  on  this  subject  against  any  in  Christen- 
dom who  can  be  marshaled  on  the  Baptist  side. 
Dr.  Wall,  whose  lengthy  and  thorough  examina- 
tions have  about  exhausted  the  subject,  concludes 
with  these  words  : — 

"As  these  evidences  are  for  the  first  four  hundred 
years,  in  which  there  appears  one  man,  Tertullian, 
that  advises  the  delay  of  infant  baptism  in  some 
cases,  and  one  Gregory  that  did,  perhaps,  practice 
such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  children,  but  no 
society  of  men  so  thinking  or  so  practicing,  nor  no 
one  man  saying  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants, 
BO  in  the  next  seven  hundred  years  there  is  not  so 
much  as  one  man  to  be  found  that  either  spoke  for 
or  practiced  any  such  delay;  but  all  the  contrary. 
And  when,  about  the  year  1130,  one  sect  among 
the  Albigenses  declared  against  the  baptizing  of 

30* 


354  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

infants,  as  being  incapable  of  salvation,  the  main 
body  of  that  people  rejected  their  opinion;  and 
they  of  tl^m  that  held  that  opinion  quickly 
dwindled  awa}^  and  disappeared,  there  being  no 
more  heard  of  holding  that  tenet  till  the  rising  of 
the  German  anti-Pedobaptists,  anno  1552."  (Wall 
on  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  ii.  ch.  10,  p.  501.) 

We  have  thus  traced  the  baptizing  of  infants  as 
the  common  Church-practice  back  through  histoiy 
into  the  very  lifetime  of  the  apostles.  "We  find  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  best  and  most  know- 
ing Christian  men  in  all  ages  and  countries  defend- 
ing and  practicing  it  as  a  true  and  proper  use  of 
the  baptismal  sacrament.  How,  then,  can  it  be 
viewed  as  any  thing  other  than  a  divine  appoint- 
ment, lying  in  the  very  bosom  of  Christianity  from 
the  beginning  ?  If  it  was  not  introduced  by  the 
apostles,  when  Avas  it  introduced  ?  If  it  was  not 
begun  by  authority  of  the  great  Author  of  our 
religion,  by  whose  authority  and  by  what  process 
was  it  begun  ?  To  these  inquiries  all  history  is 
silent;  and  the  world-wide  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism stands  forth  a  greater  riddle  than  the  pyra- 
mids of  Egypt  or  the  wasting  memorials  of  Yu- 
catan. Christians  are  dumb  as  Fejees  as  to  the 
origin  of  some  of  their  most  cherished  rites;  and 
the  Christian  world  in  a  day  completely  changed 
one  of  its  commonest  services  without  having  been 
made  conscious  of  it  for  fifteen  hundred  years ! 

III.  But  more  than  all  this :  we  have  clear  scrip- 
tural evidence  that  the  apostles  did  practice  infant 
baptism.     Though  they  were  all  missionaries,  sent 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  355 

out  among  unbelieving  Jews  and  heathens,  sur- 
rounded by  circumstances  different  from  those  in 
established  Christian  communities,  and  of  course 
not  baptizing  anybody  until  some  of  the  adults — 
with  whom  alone  they  could  begin — professed  their 
willingness  to  become  disciples,  we  yet  have  ex- 
plicit information  that  they  did  baptize  entire  fami- 
lies,— oiKOi, — houses, — offspring  of  the  same  parents, 
— CHILDREN,  including  any  and  every  age.  In  Acts  xvi. 
14, 15,  we  read  of  "  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia, 
whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  to 
the  things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  she  icas 
baptized,  and  her  [oikos]  household."  In  the 
same  chapter  we  also  read  of  a  terrified  jailer, 
whom  Paul  directed  to  "  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesua 
Christ,"  promising  upon  these  conditions  that  he 
should  be  saved,  and  his  {oikos)  house;  whereupon 
he  "  loas  baptized,  he  and  all  his."  In  1  Cor.  i.  16, 
Paul  declares,  "And  I  baptized  also  the  [oikon] 
HOUSEHOLD  OF  Stephanus."  In  Acts  X.  2,  we  read 
of  "a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God,"  whom 
Peter  baptized  "with  all  his  [oiko]  house."  In  Acts 
xviii.  8,  we  also  read  of "  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler 
of  the  synagogue,"  who  was  baptized  with  "all  his 
[oiko']  house."  In  2  Tim.  i.  16  and  iv.  19,  we  find 
mention  of  "the  loiko]  house  of  Onesiphorus"  in  a 
way  which  leads  us  to  believe  that  all  its  members 
had  been  baptized,  and  that  mention,  moreover, 
made  only  for  their  father's  sake.  Nor  is  there 
any  good  reason  why  the  families  of  Aristobulus 
and  Narcissus  (Eom.  xvi.  10,  11)  should  not  also 
be  in  the  list  of  apostolic  household  baptisms. 
Here,  then,  are  eight  oiko,— families, — four  of 


356  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

them  explicitly  said  to  have  been  baptized  by  the 
apostles,  and  all  referred  to  as  Christian  families, 
and  therefore  certainly  not  unbaptized.  Have  we 
eight  instances  of  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper?  Not  half  that  number.  Have  we  eight 
cases  of  the  change  of  the  Jewish  into  the  Christian 
Sabbath  ?  Perhaps  not  one-fourth  of  that  number. 
Yet  the  communion  and  this  change  of  day  are 
vindicated  by  apostolic  practice  as  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament.  How  can  we,  then,  deny  that  the 
apostles  baptized  children  with  their  parents,  when 
it  is  established  by  a  series  of  instances  mor-e  nu- 
merous than  can  be  found  in  support  of  any  other 
doctrine,  principle,  or  practice  handed  down  from 
apostolic  times  ? 

Dr.  Fuller  thinks  that  Lydia's  ^'household"  con- 
sisted only  of  servants  and  such  as  were  associated 
with  her  in  conducting  her  business,  and  that  the 
"house"  of  the  jailer  was  perhaps  similarly  consti- 
tuted. But  we  deny  that  oikos,  when  used  as  in 
these  passages,  ever  signifies  servants  and  attend- 
ants in  the  New  Testament.  It  primarily  denotes 
Mood-lineage, progeny,  children.  "The  house  [oikos'] 
of  Israel"  means  the  childi-en  of  Isi'ael,  "the  house 
of  David"  the  lineal  descendants  of  David,  "  the 
house  of  Judah"  the  progeny  of  Judah;  and  not  the 
servants  and  employees  of  Israel,  David,  and  Judah. 
"  Oikos,"  says  Aristotle,  "is  a  companionship  con 
nected  together  according  to  the  course  of  nature." 
"The  first  social  connection,"  says  Cicero,  "is  the 
conjugal,  then  that  of  children;  and  these  consti 
tute  a  domus, — a  house  or  family."  "  I  know  Abra- 
ham," saith  the  Lord,  "  that  he  will  command  his 


APOSTOLIC  PRACTICE.  857 

children,  even  Ms  house  [oi'Ao],  after  him."  When 
Joseph  was  made  "governoi-  over  Egypt,"  he  was 
certainly  made  master  of  all  Pharaoh's  servants 
and  slaves;  and  when  it  is  added  that  he  was  also 
made  ^'governor  over  all  Pharaoh's  house,"  (oikos,') 
we  are  thereby  assured  that  even  the  king's  own 
children  were  put  in  subjection  to  him.  Indeed,  we 
know  of  not  one  single  case  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  the  Septuagint,  or  in  all  the  Greek  classics, 
where  the  word  oikos,  when  used  as  in  these  ac- 
counts of  household  baptisms,  does  not  specifically, 
directly,  and  unequivocally  refer  to  children,  and  for 
the  most  part  to  children  exclusively.  Talk  of  oikos 
meaning  only  attendants  and  slaves  !  Why,  every 
Greek  scholar  would  laugh  to  scorn  such  an  idea 
and  utterly  despise  the  man  who  should  under- 
take to  maintain  it.  It  has  no  such  meaning. 
Nor  is  it  more  certain  that  the  word  dog  does  not 
mean  a  sheep  or  an  ass  than  that  oikos  never  means 
only  servants.  Dr.  Carson  refers  to  the  Septuagint 
version  of  1  Kings  v.  9  in  proof  that  it  "includes 
domestics ;"  but  the  word  in  that  passage  is  not 
oikos,  but  DOULOS, — the  proper  word  for  servants ; 
and  in  iv.  7,  where  the  word  is  oikos,  it  denotes 
those  whom  the  douloi  serve, — the  king's  household, 
for  whom  the  servants  were  to  bring  victuals. 
Useless  is  the  effort  of  our  Baptist  friends  to  get 
children  out  of  oikos.  It  everywhere  denotes 
blood-lineage,  the  fruit  of  conjugal  union;  and  if 
Dr.  Fuller  can  have  this  without  infants,  we  would 
call  the  scientific  world  to  come  and  behold  the 
greatest  wonder  that  has  been  since  the  creation. 
Surely  we  need  not  be  sui'prised  that  a  man  should 


358  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

not  find  infants  included  in  a  command  to  baptize 
"all  nations,"  when  he  fails  to  discover  them 
among  the  fruits  of  those  methods  of  procreation 
determined  and  established  in  our  nature  by  the 
Hand  that  made  us ! 

We  hold  that  oikos  means  the  fruit  of  wedlock, — 
progeny, — children;  and  that  there  can  be  no  oikos 
of  persons  without  children.  The  oikoi  of  Lydia, 
the  jailer,  Cornelius,  and  Stephanus  were  therefore 
the  children  of  Lydia,  the  jailer,  Cornelius,  and 
Stephanus.  It  is  a  fact  that  the  earliest  and  per- 
haps the  best  translation  of  the  New  Testament — 
the  Syriac — says  of  Lydia  that  "  she  was  baptized 
WITH  HER  CHILDREN."  And,  as  by  children  we 
mean  children,  it  remains  for  Dr.  Fuller  to  show 
that  these  were  adults  before  he  can  set  aside  the 
conclusion  that  the  apostles  verily  baptized  chil- 
dren. But,  although  he  has  all  the  force  of  the 
laws  of  language  and  all  the  conclusions  of  the 
most  every-day  observation  against  him,  he  must 
needs  make  the  attempt.  He  tells  us  that  Lydia's 
children  were  grown  men,  because  they  "  are  ex- 
pressly declared  to  have  been  brethren,  whom  the 
apostles  saw  and  comforted"  when  released  from 
prison.  (P.  142.)  Did  ever  any  man  see  such  con- 
tumacy and  such  determination  at  all  hazards  to 
carry  a  sectarian  dogma?  Let  the  reader  but 
examine  the  16th  chapter  of  Acts,  and  he  will  see 
that  a  more  glaring  perversion  of  God's  word  is 
hardly  to  be  found.  Paul  was  at  "Derbe  and 
Lystra."  He  there  found  "a  certain  disciple 
named  Timothy.  .  .  .  Him  Paul  would  have  to  go 
forth  with  him."     And  "when  they  [Paul  and  Silas 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  359 

iind  Timothy]  had  gone  throughout  Phrygia  and  tho 
region  of  Galatia,  they  passed  by  Mysia  and  came 
down  to  Troas."  A  vision  appeared  to  Paul ;  and, 
after  he  had  seen  the  vision,  Luke  says,  "We 
[Paul,  Silas,  Timothy,  and  I,  Luke]  endeavored  to 
go  into  Macedonia.  Therefore,  loosing  from  Troas, 
WE  came  to  Samothracia,  and  the  next  day  to 
Neapolis,  and  from  thence  to  Philippi.  .  .  .  And  on 
the  Sabbath  we  went  out  to  the  Proseucha,  and 
WE  sat  down  and  spake  to  the  women  that  resorted 
thither.  .  . .  Lydia  .  . .  heard  us, .  .  .  and  constrained 
us  to  come  into  her  house  and  abide  there."  Who, 
then,  were  this  we  and  us,  if  not  Paul,  Silas,  Timo- 
thy, and  Luke,  the  writer  of  the  account  ?  This 
was  the  company  journeying  together  and  which 
lodged  together  at  the  house  of  Lydia.  ''And  it 
came  to  pass,"  says  Luke,  "  as  we  went  to  prayer, 
a  certain  damsel  possessed  with  a  spirit  of  divina- 
tion met  us :  the  same  followed  us.  .  .  .  But  Paul, 
being  grieved,  cast  out  the  spirit.  And  when  her 
miasters  saw  that  the  hope  of  their  gains  was  gone, 
they  caught  Paul  and  Silas  [not  Timothy  and 
Luke],  .  .  .  laid  many  stripes  upon  them,  and  cast 
them  into  prison."  Paul  and  Silas  were  now  in 
jail;  but  ^Hhe  brethreti" — Timothy  and  Luke,  of 
course — continued  at  their  lodgings  in  the  house 
of  Lydia.  During  the  night  God  heard  the  prayers 
of  the  prisoners  and  miraculously  struck  off  their 
chains.  "And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and 
entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia,"  and  saw  "the 
brethren."  What  brethren  ?  A  Sabbath-school  child 
would  not  miss  the  true  answer.  Certainly,  not 
Lydia- 8  grown-up  sons;  for  it  is  nowhere  to  be 


360  TUE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

found  that  she  ever  had  sons,  much  less  sons  grown 
up  at  that  period  of  her  life.  Who,  then,  were  the 
parties  abiding  in  Lydia's  house  entitled  to  be 
noted  down  as  so  peculiarly  "^Ae  brethren"  of  Paul 
and  Silas  ?  Unquestionably,  their  companions  in 
travel  and  fellow-missionaries  of  the  cross,  Timo- 
thy and  Luke. 

There  is  no  proof,  then,  that  Lydia's  children 
were  any  thing  but  children.  And  if  even  the 
youngest  of  them  was  only  less  than  ten  years  of 
age,  the  last  refuge  of  the  Baptists  is  swept  away, 
and  the  truth,  rising  to  assert  its  rightful  empire, 
proclaims  to  the  four  winds  that  the  apostles  did 
baptize  children,  and  regarded  themselves  as  au- 
thorized and  bound  to  do  so  under  their  commis- 
sion. A  single  fact  like  this  is  invincible  in  our 
favor  against  all  abstract  or  analogical  reasoning 
that  the  human  mind  shall  ever  breed. 

Dr.  Puller  also  insinuates  that  the  jailer's  chil- 
dren were  not  children,  because  it  is  said  that  '^he 
rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  house."  <'  See 
there!"  says  he:  "after  all,  these  babes  are  old 
enough  to  know  spiritual  joy  and  to  utter  praises 
to  God  \"  Well,  be  it  so, — though  the  record  no- 
where says  it :  we  know  that  God  has  "perfected 
praise"  out  of  the  mouths  of  "babes  and  suck- 
lings." Tender  infancy  presents  no  insuperable 
impediment  to  it.  Jeremiah  was  sanctified  before 
he  was  born.  John  was  "filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  even  from  his  mother's  womb."  Eaxter 
loved  God  prior  to  his  earliest  recollection.  And 
if  Dr.  Fuller  will  visit  some  of  the  Sunday-schools 
of  Baltimore,  he  will  find  infant  classes  uttering 


APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE.  361 

praises  as  perfect  and  from  hearts  as  pure  as  ever 
honored  the  earthly  assemblies  of  God's  worship- 
ers. And  if  the  jailer's  babes  could  know  joy  and 
utter  praise,  they  still  may  have  been  mere  "  babes 
and  sucklings,"  or  else  the  testimony  of  God  must 
give  place  to  the  narrow  conceits  of  man's  phi- 
losophy. 

But,  says  Dr.  Fuller,  "such  infants  as  these  1 
shall  be  happy  to  baptize  every  day  of  my  life." 
Ah !  and  where  would  he  get  the  authority  for  it '{ 
From  the  commission?  He  says  the  commission 
utterly  excludes  infants.  In  apostolic  practice? 
He  holds  that  the  apostles  never  baptized  any  but 
adults.  By  what  right,  then,  would  he  baptize 
"babes  and  sucklings"?  The  case  admits  of  but 
one  alternative.  It  is  either  his  duty  or  it  is  not 
his  duty  to  baptize  all  such  infants  as  are  to  be 
viewed  as  non-resistants  of  divine  grace  and  learn- 
ers in  the  school  of  Christ.  If  such  is  his  duty, 
then  there  is  authority  and  obligation  for  baptizing 
some  babes  at  least,  and  infant  baptism  is  no  per- 
version of  Christianity  after  all.  And  if  it  is  not 
his  duty  to  baptize  any  babes  whatever,  then  we 
must  conclude  that  there  is  more  authority  for 
baptizing  an  old  conjurer,  hardened  in  sin  by  the 
confirmed  habit  of  many  years,  and  actually  "  in 
the  gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the  bonds  of  iniquity," 
than  there  is  for  baptizing  holy  ones  like  the  infant 
John,  or  for  giving  the  sign  of  consecration  to 
Christ  to  those  "  bahes  and  sucklings"  out  of  whose 
mouths  God  himself  has  perfected  praise.  Dr. 
Fuller  may  take  either  side  of  the  dilemma,  and 
one  side  he  must  take,  and  his  refusal  to  baptize 
31 


362  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

the  children  of  believers  shows  itself  to  be  an  utter 
absurdity. 

The  record,  however,  says  nothing  about  "  spi- 
ritual joy"  or  "praises  to  God"  in  connection  with 
the  jailer's  children.  The  words  are  explicit  that 
he  himself  did  the  rejoicing,  "  believing  in  God." 
This  he  did,  not  in  the  absence  of  his  family,  but 
^^with  all  his  house,"  those  old  enough  sympathizing 
with  him  in  the  joy  of  his  marvellous  deliverance 
from  impending  death,  and  the  youngest  not  ex- 
cluded from  the  scene  of  his  festivity.  Nay,  if  the 
jailer's  children  were  adults,  how  did  it  happen 
that  Paul  promised  salvation  to  them  all  on  the 
condition  of  their  father's  faith?  The  apostle  said 
to  the  jailer  alone, '' Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  ^oikos']  children." 
Upon  the  Baptist  theory  let  Dr.  Fuller  explain  this 
if  he  can,  and  tell  us  whether,  when  he  immerses 
an  aged  father,  he  thereupon  promises  salvation  to 
all  his  grown-up  sons  and  daughters.  No,  no.  Dr. 
Fuller :  your  jocularity  with  Dr.  Kurtz  will  not 
relieve  the  stern  difficulties  of  your  forced  inter- 
pretation of  this  passage.  Admit  that  the  children 
of  believers  are  entitled  to  baptism,  and  every  thing 
is  explained;  deny  this,  and  the  whole  case  is  for- 
ever inexplicable.  The  Bible  says  that  the  jailer's 
children  were  baptized  along  with  himself,  and 
that  salvation  was  promised  to  them  on  the  ground 
of  their  father's  faith ;  and  the  double  inference  is 
therefore  inevitable,  that  they  were  not  of  an  age 
to  make  a  Christian  profession  for  themselves,  and 
that  the  apostles  did  actually  baptize  children. 

As   to   the   children   of  Stephanus,   Dr.   Fuller 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  363 

holds  that  they  wei'e  all  adults  when  baptized  :  first, 
because  it  is  said  that  "  many  of  the  Corinthians 
believed  and  were  baptized ;"  though  there  is  no 
evidence  that  Stephanus  was  a  Corinthian,  he  and 
his  house  (oikos)  being  "the  first-fruits  of  Achaia;" 
and,  second,  because  it  is  said  of  them  that  they 
had  "  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the 
saints."  But  great  changes  occur  in  growing 
families  in  the  course  of  eight  or  ten  years.  The 
boy  in  the  year  51,  when  Stephanus  and  his  house 
were  baptized,  would  naturally  be  a  man  in  the 
year  59,  when  this  record  was  made.  The  eldest 
of  the  childi'en  of  Stephanus  may  have  been  ten  or 
fifteen  years  old  when  they  were  baptized,  whilst 
others  may  have  been  mere  babes ;  and  yet  it  might 
easily  be  said  of  them,  ten  years  afterward,  that 
they  had  shown  much  kindness  to  their  fellow- 
Christians.  David  slew  Goliath  and  put  the  Phi- 
listine army  to  flight  when  but  a  ruddy  youth. 
Samuel  served  as  a  minister  in  the  tabernacle  when 
but  a  little  boy.  Our  Sabbath-schools  contain  many 
a  child  entitled  to  be  called  an  angel  of  mercy  for 
its  good  deeds  toward  the  poor  and  suffering.  And 
why  could  not  these  children,  especially  under  a 
pious  father's  guidance,  some  of  whom  were  now 
pretty  well  grown  up,  addict  themselves  to  minis- 
tering unto  the  saints,  although  ten  years  previous 
some  of  them  were  no  more  than  babes  ?  Does 
Dr.  Fuller  hold  that  "once  an  infant  always  an 
infant,"  and  maintain  that  because  this  family  was 
noted  for  its  kindness  in  a.d.  60,  not  one  of  its 
members  could  have  been  under  ten  or  twelve 
years  old  in  a.d.  50?     If  not,  then  all  the  stress 


364  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

which  he  lays  upon  the  Christian  activity  of  these 
"first-fruits  of  Achaia,"  ten  years  after  the}^  were 
baptized,  must  pass  for  nothing;  and  we  are  left  to 
believe  that  the  children  of  Stephanus,  when  bap- 
tized by  Paul,  were  no  more  than  children.  Indeed, 
the  very  manner  in  which  we  come  to  know  any 
thing  about  this  baptism  is  conclusive  evidence 
that  even  so  long  after  the  baptizing  had  been 
performed  these  children  were  yet  too  young  to  be 
of  any  material  force  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church. 
Factions  had  sprung  up  at  Corinth.  One  was  for 
Paul,  another  for  Apollos,  and  a  third  for  Peter. 
A  letter  is  written  to  rebuke  these  disorders.  Paul, 
the  writer  of  it,  sets  himself  to  show  the  absurdity 
of  such  a  thing  as  a  Paul  party  in  that  Church. 
He  tells  them  that  he  had  been  crucified  for  no- 
body, and  that  with  his  own  hand  he  had  not  even 
baptized  any  but  Crispiis  and  Gains,  who  do  not 
seem  to  have  taken  the  general  infection.  These 
were  the  only  men  of  influence  who  could  so  much 
as  claim  him  as  their  baptizer.  And  then,  with  a 
certain  tardiness,  as  if  he  were  undecided  as  to 
whether  it  would  be  worth  while  to  mention  it,  he 
remarks,  "Soivever,  I  baptized  also  the  household  of 
Stephanus,"  intimating  that  they  were  hardly  to  be 
taken  into  account  on  this  question,  as  they  were 
not  of  sufficient  influence  or  age  to  be  much  sup- 
port to  any  party.  He  first  passes  them  alto- 
gether : —  "  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you 
but  Crispits  and  Gains."  We  demand  of  Dr.  Fuller 
the  reason  of  this  total  omission.  Had  Paul  for- 
gotten ?  Can  an  inspired  man,  recording  his  own 
oflicial  acts,  forget  ?     There  is  no  explanation,  and 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  365 

can  be  none,  except  upon  the  ground  that  these 
children  of  Stephanus  were  yet  minors,  even  eight 
or  ten  years  after  their  baptism,  and  for  that 
reason  quite  out  of  the  question  which  the  apostle 
had  before  him.  If  they  had  been  adults,  they 
were  just  as  likely  to  be  Paulians,  because  Paul 
had  baptized  them,  as  Crispus  and  Gains ;  and  it 
could  only  be  because  they  were  still  too  young  to 
have  any  thing  to  do  with  these  party  disputes 
that  Paul  esteemed  it  hardly  worth  while  to  refer 
to  them  in  such  a  connection.  If  this  does  not 
prove  that  children  were  among  the  subjects  of 
apostolic  baptism,  we  know  nothing  about  the  force 
of  evidence. 

The  house  of  Stephanus  "  addicted  themselves  to 
the  ministry  of  the  saints."  To  this  Mr.  Ewing 
has  a  very  just  remark: — "Were  this  a  proof," 
says  he,  "  that  they  had  among  them  no  infants, 
we  might  find  a  proof  that  the  house  of  the  Eechab- 
ites  had  among  them  no  infants,  because  in  Jer. 
XXXV.  2-11,  they  addicted  themselves  to  perform 
the  commandment  of  their  father.  The  general 
terms  are  even  stronger  in  the  latter  instance 
than  in  the  former;  but  in  both  the  exceptions  of 
infancy  may  be  equally  understood."  (On  Baptism, 
p.  190.) 

We  therefore  hold  Dr.  Fuller  to  the  plain  and 
direct  meaning  of  the  word  oikos.  It  denotes  chil- 
dren. And  when  we  have  the  unequivocal  testi- 
mony of  the  Scriptures  that  the  apostles  did  bap- 
tize oikoi,  before  the  dogma  of  the  Baptists  can 
stand  they  must  prove  that  the  members  of  these 
oikoi  were  all  adults.    We  have  the  word  which,  as 

31* 


366  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

certainly  as  any  word  in  any  language,  compre- 
hends infants ;  and  we  are  therefore  bound  to  hold 
that  infants  ai-e  included  and  Avcre  baptized  until 
the  most  unmistakable  proof  to  the  contrary  has 
been  produced.  Such  proof  has  never  been  pro- 
duced. A  book,  written  about  thirty  years  ago,  to 
prove  that  infants  were  included  in  the  oikoi  bap- 
tized by  the  apostles,  was  submitted  to  the  Baptists 
of  Britain,  with  a  challenge  for  their  refutation. 
Years  passed,  but  no  refutation  was  attempted. 
The  book  was  even  submitted  to  a  Baptist  associa- 
tion, with  the  most  respectful  solicitation  that 
they  would  either  admit  the  truth  of  its  positions 
or  have  them  refuted;  but  the  request  was  an- 
swered with  a  formal  resolution  to  disregard  it! 
And  from  that  day  to  the  present  moment  Taylor's 
Facts  and  Evidences  on  the  Subjects  of  Christian 
Baptism  remain  unanswered,  and  without  an 
ATTEMPT  AT  AN  ANSWER,  by  any  Baptist  on  either 
side  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

If  the  baptizing  of  infants,  then,  is  to  be  de- 
nounced as  such  a  horrible  crime,  let  Baptists  first 
show  us  how  they  exempt  God's  inspired  apostles 
from  the  dreadful  crimination  by  answering  the 
invincible  positions  of  that  learned  advocate  of 
the  truth  whom  Dr.  Fuller  mentions  only  to  call 
"the  silly  editor  of  Calmet." 

Indeed,  with  the  facts  before  us,  that  oikos  means 
family,  and  that  the  apostles  baptized  certainly 
not  less  than  eight  such  families,  the  plainest  com- 
mon sense  will  infer  with  the  firmest  confidence 
that  they  must  have  baptized  infants.  Take  eight 
I'amilies  at  a  venture  in  any  street,  town,  village, 


APOSTOLIC  PRACTICE.  367 

or  neighborhood,  or  eight  pews  containing  fami- 
lies in  a  place  of  worship,  and  in  all  of  them 
not  to  find  one  child  under  ten  years  of  age 
would  be  a  circumstance  sufficiently  strange  to 
be  heralded  from  sea  to  sea,  as  showing  that  the 
world  is  coming  to  an  end,  sure  enough.  Take  the 
average  number  of  children  in  a  family  to  be  six; 
these  eight  families  would  include  foHy-eight  chil- 
dren; and  yet,  among  forty-eight  children  of 
parents  not  past  the  busy  activities  of  middle  life, 
not  to  find  one  child  under  eight  or  ten  years  of 
age  would  be  truly  Avonderful.  Who  can  believe 
it  ?  Who,  then,  can  doubt  that  the  apostles  baptized 
infants  ? 

There  is  another  thought  which  we  will  yet 
present. 

The  Greek  words  pistos  and  pistoi,  a  faithful  and 
faithfuls,  when  applied  to  persons  in  the  New 
Testament,  designate  them  as  church-members, — 
as  persons  belonging  to  the  household  of  faith. 
(See  1  Cor.  iv.  17;  Eph.  vi.  21;  Col.  iv.  9;  1  Pet.  v. 
12;  Acts  xvi.  1;  1  Tim.  v.  16,  vi.  2,  iv.  12;  Eph.  i. 
1;  Col.  i.  2.)  The  term  implies  all  that  is  in- 
cluded in  Christian  discipleship;  and  in  the  case 
of  Lydia  it  is  so  strongly  connected  with  baptism 
as  to  be  interchangeable  with  it.  "When  she  Avas 
baptized  with  her  family,  she  besought  us,  saying. 
If  [since]  you  have  adjudged  me  to  be  a  pistaen  [a 
faithful]  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and 
abide  there."  (Acts  xvi.  15.)  The  sense  in  this 
passage  would  be  the  same  if  we  were  to  put  the 
term  baptized  in  the  place  of  faithful  and  faithful 
for  baptized.     It  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  an 


368  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

indi\ndual  can  be  one  and  not  the  other,  as  the 
Christian  Church  is  constituted.  And  to  call  one 
a  faithful  is  equivalent  to  calling  him  a  Christian 
brother,  a  disciple  of  Christ.  But  Paul  to  Titus 
(i.  6)  explicitly  applies  this  term  to  children. 
Speaking  of  the  qualities  to  be  possessed  by  a 
bishop,  the  apostle  says,  "He  must  be  the  husband 
of  one  wife,  Aarm^' children  \tekna']  who  are  faith- 
fuls." The  word  tekna  is  used  to  denote  the 
children,  "frojn  two  years  old  and  under,"  that  Herod 
ordered  to  be  slain  in  and  about  Bethlehem.  A 
certain  Baptist  writer  admits  that  it  means  "  all 
minors  from  twenty  days  old."  The  apostle  makes 
no  distinction  between  the  eldest  and  the  youngest. 
Of  whatever  age,  he  here  makes  it  a  part  of  a 
bishop's  business  to  have  his  children  faithfuls. 
We  find  also  that  John,  in  his  Epistle,  which  is 
written  to  faithfuls,  (1  John  v.  13,)  distinguishes 
between  fathers,  young  meji,  and  little  children. 
(ii.  12,  13.)  .Would  the  apostles  have  given  these 
significant  Christian  titles  to  little  children  whilst 
they  denied  to  them  Christian  Church-membership 
and  Christian  baptism?     It  cannot  be. 

We  think  that  we  have  now  made  out  our  case. 
We  have  shown  that,  if  the  apostles  did  not  bap- 
tize the  children  of  believers  in  infancy  and  child- 
hood, there  is  no  evidence  in  Scripture  that  they 
ever  baptized  them  at  all.  We  have  traced  infant 
baptism  as  the  practice  of  the  Church  up  to  the 
lifetime  of  some  of  the  apostles.  We  have  shoAvn 
that  they  baptized  numerous  oikoi,  or  families  in 
which  there  must  have  been  children,  and  that 
they  applied  names  to  children  which  must  needs 


APOSTOLIC   PRACTICE.  369 

be  out  of  place  except  upon  the  admission  that 
they  were  baptized  children.  And  we  think  the 
conclusion  inevitable,  from  these  premises,  that 
infant  baptism  is  a  thing  with  authority  as  high  as 
that  for  Christianity  itself;  that  it  is  a  thing 
founded  on  apostolic  sanction,  and,  therefore,  of 
divine  appointment.  We  would  have  much  more 
to  say  upon  the  general  subject,  but  we  can  see  no 
occasion  for  it. 

In  winding  up  a  very  well  conducted  argument 
on  the  subject  of  '^  Domestic  Slavery,"  Dr.  Fuller 
finally  settles  down  upon  this  as  a  sound  principle : 
— ^'What  God  sanctioned  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
permitted  in  the  New,  cannot  he  a  sin."  We  agree 
with  the  logic  of  that  argument  and  with  the  con- 
clusion which  it  is  designed  to  support.  And  if 
the  doctor  will  apply  it  to  the  subject  of  infant 
Church-membership,  he  will  find  it  vastly  more 
powerful  against  him  on  this  question  than  it  was 
for  him  in  the  cause  in  which  he  called  it  to  his 
aid.  God  not  only  "sanctioned"  infant  Church- 
membership  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  positively 
ordained  and  required  it.  And  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ho  not  only  permitted  it,  but  so  spoke  and 
acted  with  regard  to  children,  and  so  moved  his 
inspired  servants  to  act  and  speak  on  the  subject, 
as  inevitably  to  lead  the  mind  of  the  Christian 
world  to  believe  that,  so  far  from  abridging  the 
former  immunities  of  children,  their  position  and 
rights  under  the  gospel  are  vastly  elevated  and 
enlarged.  And  what  God  commanded  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  by  word  and  deed  sanc- 
tioned IN  the  New,  cannot  be  a  sin. 


o70  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Go,  then,  Christian  parent,  and,  with  a  fervent 
and  confiding  heart,  offer  your  children  in  solemn 
consecration  to  Him  who  made  them,  in  the  holy- 
ordinance  which  he  himself  has  appointed.  Go; 
let  them  be  marked  by  Christ's  commissioned  am- 
bassador as  members  beloved  of  the  Savior's  fold; 
for  he  hath  said,  "0/"  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Give  them  to  your  blessed  Lord  in  the  sacrament 
of  his  love  and  mercy;  for  he  hath  promised, 
"  Whosoever  shall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little 
ones  a  cup  of  cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a 
disciple,  verily  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward." 
Bring  them;  and  in  the  name  of  Jesus  we  will 
receive  them  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  which 
is  his  body;  for  he  hath  declared,  ''Whoso  shall 

RECEIVE    ONE   SUCH   LITTLE   CHILD   IN    MY   NAME   KE- 
CEIVETH   ME." 

It  was  the  remark  of  a  certain  itinerant 
preacher  that  there  are  but  two  places  of  which  he 
had  ever  heard  in  which  there  are  no  infants:  the 
one  is  hell,  the  other  is  the  Baptist  Church. 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  371 


CHAPTEK  XXY. 

TERMS  OP   COMMUNION. 

It  only  remains  for  us  now  to  make  a  few  com- 
ments on  Dr.  Fuller's  "  Terms  of  Communion,"  and 
we  have  done. 

It  is  a  gratification  to  know  that  these  "  tem£* 
are  not  endorsed  by  all  Baptists,  Some  im- 
mersionists — especially  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic — repudiate  them  with  deserved  abhor- 
rence. The  reader  shall  hear  from  a  few  of  them 
before  we  close.  But  Baptists  generally,  and  with 
very  few  exceptions  in  this  country,  defend  and  prac- 
tice just  such  "terms"  as  those  presented  by  Dr. 
Fuller,  and  which  we  feel  called  on  to  hold  up  to 
the  indignation  of  a  right-feeling  Christian  public. 

Dr.  Fuller  thinks  that  it  is  "  not  right,"  that 
it  is  "unkind,"  "unjust,"  "ungenerous,"  "mis- 
chievous," "and  deserves  no  better  name  than 
croaking,"  "  to  speak  against  the  Baptists  for  their 
practice  in  communion."  (P.  247.)  He  sees  noth- 
ing of  this  sort,  however,  in  the  everlasting  railing 
of  Baptist  champions  against  millions  of  God's 
people  for  their  practice  in  baptism.  But  if  our 
baptism  is  to  be  open  to  the  harsh  censures  and 
maledictions  of  Baptists,  we  should  like  to  know 
by  what  laws  of  right  or  principles  of  just  reason 


872  THK    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

we  are  to  be  barred  from  forming  and  uttering  our 
opinions  concerning  their  communion.  We  do  not 
advocate  the  return  of  railing  for  railing,  or  the 
meeting  of  abuse  with  abuse.  Being  smitten  on 
the  one  cheek,  we  would  rather  turn  the  other 
also.  But  when  a  brother  is  so  bent  upon  remov- 
ing a  mote  from  our  eye,  we  claim  the  privilege  of 
asking  him  to  remove  the  beam  from  his  own. 
"We  do  not  complain  that  our  practice  in  baptism 
is  canvassed,  probed,  and  discussed.  What  we  do 
we  do  openly,  and  invite  the  closest  scrutiny  into 
the  righteousness  of  our  proceedings.  We  have 
nothing  which  we  desire  to  be  taken  for  granted 
or  which  we  are  afraid  to  have  investigated.  If 
we  are  the  abettors  of  "damnable  heresy,"  we 
will  esteem  it  a  great  favor  to  have  it  shown  us 
and  to  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
And  if  Dr.  Fuller  has  one-half  of  the  love  for  us 
and  for  the  truth  which  he  professes,  he  ought  not 
to  be  so  nervous  on  the  subject  of  a  little  moral 
cautery  which  his  "dear  brethren"  may  deem 
necessary. 

But  we  can  easily  see  and  understand  why  he 
would  prefer  to  have  nothing  said  "against  the 
Baptists  for  their  practice  in  communion."  It 
touches  a  very  sore  point.  It  comes  too  near 
the  quick  and  life  of  his  system.  It  denudes  a 
feature  of  his  cause  which  is  too  unlovely  for  the 
public  eye,  and  lays  open  its  heart  in  a  light  in  no 
way  very  creditable  or  flattering  to  its  advocates. 
It  discloses  a  posture  of  things  in  the  framework 
of  Baptist  principles  with  which  it  is  not  particu- 
larly pleasant  to  face  the  common  sense  of  the 


TERMS   OP   COMMUNION.  373 

community;  a  posture  of  things  which  reduces 
our  immersionist  friends  to  the  unenviable  alterna- 
tive of  surrendering  their  sectarian  dogmas  on 
baptism,  or  of  excommunicating  ninety-nine  hun- 
dredths of  Christendom,  including  the  great  body 
of  the  best  and  holiest  saints.     It  presents 

"A  strong  dilemma  in  a  desperate  ease: — 
To  act  with  in/ami/,  or  quit  the  place." 

This  is  a  trying  strait.  No  wonder  that  it 
should  excite  a  wish  to  have  nothing  said.  Dr. 
Fuller  thinks  it  very  hard  that  Baptists  are  com- 
pelled to  occupy  such  a  position.  He  mourns  over 
it  bitterly.  He  speaks  of  it  as  giving  him  more 
pain  than  the  pains  of  excommunication.  (Pp.  239, 
247.)  He  languishes  under  it  as  if  it  would 
"break  his  heart."  (P.  244.)  He  complains  of  it 
as  a  positive  cruelty  inflicted  by  those  whom  he  so 
dearly  loves.  (P.  247.)  O  ye  saints  of  God  and 
*' noble  lights  and  ornaments  of  Christianity," 
why  will  ye  thus  torment  the  man  ?  Why  will  ye 
blame  him  for  your  being  saints  without  submis- 
sion to  his  opinions  ?  Poor,  bleeding  soul !  He 
never  meant  that  you  should  be  the  children  of 
God  in  this  way!  Oh,  how  "unkind"  and  "un- 
generous," ye  servants  of  Jesus,  that  you  should 
become  the  heirs  of  heaven  without  immersion, 
when  the  dear  lover  of  your  souls  who  wrote  a 
book  is  under  the  deplorable  necessity  of  excom- 
municating you  or  surrendering  his  opinion  on  the 
meaning  of  haptizo! ! 

In  treating  further  on  this  subject,  we  propose, 
first,  to  present  the  terms  of  communion  which 
Baptists  set  up;  second,  to  notice  the  arguments 

32 


374  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

used  to  sustain  them;  and,  third,  to  point  out  some 
of  their  unchristian  and  disgraceful  implications. 

I.  The  TERMS  THEMSELVES. — These  may  be  thus 
summed  up :  That  no  man,  and  no  woman,  though 
pious  as  the  Apostle  John  or  the  Virgin  Mary,  has  any 
right  or  claim  whatever  to  the  communion  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  without  being  first  totally  immersed  in  water. 
Dr.  Fuller  says,  "1  rejoice  to  know  that  in  Pedo- 
baptist  [that  is,  our'\  Churches  there  are  some  of 
the  noblest  lights  and  ornaments  of  Christianity." 
(P.  238.)  But  he  says  of  these  same  persons, 
"  We  cannot  admit  them  to  the  Supper."  "  Baptism," 
says  he,  "is  a  pre-requisite  to  the  Supper;  and  we 
cannot  admit  to  the  Supper  those  whom  we  regard 
as  unbaptized,  however  much  we  may  love  them, 
however  deeply  we  may  lament  the  necessity  laid 
upon  us.  To  do  this  [that  is,  admit  them  to  the 
Supper]  would  be  to  declare  such  persons  qualified 
for  membership  in  our  Churches;  which  would  be 
to  admit  members  without  baptism  [Jmmersion']; 
which  would  be  to  abolish  baptism  [immersion] 
altogether."  (P.  237.)  Professor  Curtis,  in  the 
name  of  the  whole  denomination  with  which  he 
co-operates,  says,  "  There  is  to  us  a  most  obvious 
inconsistency  in  admitting  to  our  occasional  com- 
munion those  whom  we  should  be  unwilling  to 
admit  to  our  Church-fellowship,"  (p.  108;)  that  "if 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Church-ordinance,  and  indi- 
cates a  Church -fellowship  among  all  those  who 
partake  together,  it  is  a  violation  of  truth  in  sym- 
bols to  invite  to  occasional  communion  those 
whom  our  constitutional  principles  would  forbid  to 


TERMS  OF  COMMUNION.  375 

be  members  of  our  churches,"  (p.  142;)  and  that, 
"as  it  is  taken  for  granted  in  this  discussion  that 
Christian  baptism  essentially  involves  an  immer- 
sion of  the  body  in  water,  as  a  profession  of  per- 
sonal faith  in  Christ,  so  it  follows  that  this  whole 
discussion  must  be  founded  on  the  acknowledg- 
ment that  our  Pedobaptist  friends  are  without  valid 
baptism.  Nor  can  it  make  any  abatement  from 
this  conclusion,  or  alteration  in  regard  to  our  re- 
ceiving them  at  the  Lord's  table,  that  they 
do  not  perceive  this."  (P.  142.)  Professor  Cur- 
tis's  elaborate  work  "ow  Communion^'  embraces 
over  three  hundred  pages.  It  is  devoted  entirely 
to  the  explanation  and  defence  of  "the  Bap- 
tist practice  in  communion."  The  quotations 
we  have  given  contain  its  sum  and  essence. 
It  is  meant  to  vindicate  the  Baptists  in  their 
enforcement  of  their  opinions  on  baptism  by 
the  pains  of  excommunication,  and  in  exalting 
the  same  into  an  essential  condition  of  Church- 
fellowship.  "  The  Tennessee  Baptist"  sheet  thus 
discourses  on  the  same  point: — "I  may  err;  but  I 
do  most  conscientiously  believe  that  affiliation 
WITH  Pedobaptists  IS  the  fruit,  not  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  the  spirit  of  indifferentism  and  pantheism ; 
that  it  has  done,  and  is  still  doing,  more  to  impede 

THE    SPREAD   OF   THE   GOSPEL   THAN   EoMANISM,  Ma- 

homedanism,  Heathenism,  and  Infidelity  com- 
bined; that  not  until  it  is  cast  out  will  Zion  appear 
in  her  robes  of  victory  and  the  kingdoms  of  this  loorld 
become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  his  Christ." 
According  to  this  writer,  not  only  Baptist  con- 
sistency and  the  integrity  of  the  Baptist  system 


376  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

depend  on  refusal  to  commune  or  affiliate  with 
non-immersionists,  but  also  the  triumphs  of  Chris- 
tendom, the  evangelization  of  the  nations,  and  the 
conversion  of  the  world ! 

We  have  been  told  that  Baptists  all  over  the  land 
are  thrilling  with  the  thought  that  on  them  exclu- 
sively devolves  the  work  of  giving  the  word  of  God 
to  the  nations.  We  here  find  them  "conscien- 
tiously believing"  that  on  their  refusal  to  commune 
with  any  but  Baptists  depends  the  world's  redemp- 
tion. Yet  Professor  Curtis  thinks  "  a  serious  de- 
ficiency of  our  [their']  modern  Church-fellowship  is 
the  want  of  more  of  what  may  be  termed  the  esprit 
du  corps"  !  (P.  58.)  May  we  not  hope  to  hear  next 
that  the  universe  revolves  on  baptisteries,  and  that 
with  Baptists  rests  the  regulation  of  planetary 
motions  and  sidereal  centres  ?  Wfe  await  the  recu- 
peration of  the  lacking  "  esprit"  with  large  expecta- 
tions ! 

Dr.  Fuller  speaks  of  the  Baptists  as  a  persecuted 
people.  He  says  "  that  upon  the  Baptist  Churches 
has  descended  in  unmitigated  entail  the  not  very 
enviable  distinction  noticed  in  this  passage, — ^  As 
concerning  this  sect,  we  know  that  everywhere  it  is 
spoken  against.'"  (P.  213.)  He  also  states  that  the 
chief  and  only  serious  ground  of  this  '^accusation 
against  the  Baptist  Churches  is  that  of  illiberality 
in  what  is  called  close  communion,"  to  which  he 
finds  himself,  as  he  says,  "required  to  conform." 
(P.  219.) 

It  is  therefore  a  settled  point,  which  we  would 
have  distinctly  understood  and  noted  for  continual 
reference  in  connection  with  this  conti'oversy,  that 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  377 

it  is  the  rule — a  cherished  principle,  a  thing  held 
vitally  essential  to  the  whole  Baptist  system  of 
faith  and  practice — that  none  of  their  members  are 
ever  to  take  the  Lord's  Supper  with  other  denomi- 
nations, or  ever  to  allow  any  who  are  not  Baptists 
to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  from  them,  no  matter 
though  the  persons  excluded  be  among  *'  the  no- 
blest lights  and  ornaments  of  Christianity."  .  As 
remarked  by  the  chosen  champion  of  "  close  com- 
munion" and  published  by  the  "Amei"ican  Baptist 
Publication  Society,"  "We  [Baptists]  take  our 
stand  upon  this :  that  if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
Church-ordinance,  if  it  is  the  appointed  symbol  of 
Church-relations,  it  should  only  be  celebrated  together 
with  those  with  whom  we  can  consistently  sustain  these 
relations i"  that  is,  exclusively  with  Baptists. 
(Curtis  on  Communion,  p.  108.)  The  italicizing  is 
from  Mr.  Curtis  himself. 

II.  Having  thus  ascertained  wha,t  are  the  Bap- 
tist "  terms  of  communion,"  we  proceed  to  notice 
THE  arguments  put  forth  to  sustain  them.  These 
are  not  many.  With  all  the  large  books  and 
labored  disquisitions  which  Baptists  have  given  to 
the  world  on  this  subject,  a  few  sentences  contain 
all  that  they  have  ever  been  able  to  produce  in 
defence  of  their  practice.  Indeed,  their  exclusive- 
ness  in  this  matter  so  contradicts  the  whole  spirit 
of  the  gospel  that  it  will  not  admit  of  the  merest 
show  of  argument  in  its  favor. 

Professor  Curtis,  it  is  true,  thinks  he  has  found 
in  the  very  constitution  of  Christianity  a  principle 
which  sanctions  and  requires  it;  but  it  is  mere 

82* 


378  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

theorizing  without  the  slightest  foundation.  He 
conceives  of  Christians  as  consisting  of  two  classes : 
first,  as  simply  Christians  interiorly  and  invisibly 
and  individually  related  to  Christ,  separate  and 
apart  from  all  ordinances  or  Church-organizations  ; 
second,  as  Church-members  associated  together  in 
visible  ordinances  in  particular  societies.  He 
teaches  that  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  a  Church-ordi- 
nance, is  not  at  all  for  Christians  simply  as  such, 
but  exclusively  and  only  for  Christians  as  they  are 
associated  in  particular  Churches;  that  each  mem- 
ber of  such  a  particular  society  is  entitled  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  only  in  his  own  particular 
society  or  congregation ;  and  that,  therefore,  from 
the  very  constitution  of  Christianity,  there  cannot 
rightfully  be  any  communion  in  the  Supper  but 
close  or  exclusive  communion.  We  put  the  argu- 
ment in  its  full  strength ;  and  yet  who  is  so  poorly 
instructed  in  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  as  for 
one  moment  to  believe  that  there  is  any  force  or 
truth  in  it?  To  divorce  Christianity  and  the 
Church,  and  to  separate  acceptable  saving  piety 
from  attention  to  God's  own  saci'amental  means 
of  grace,  is  to  put  asunder  what  God  has  joined 
together,  to  mutilate  the  whole  mediatorial  system, 
to  trample  the  visible  economy  of  grace  into  insig- 
nificance, and  to  set  up  "  another  gospel,"  which 
the  apostles  have  not  taught.  Christ  has  ordained 
no  two  kinds  of  discipleship,  no  two  armies  of 
saints,  no  two  ways  of  securing  heaven.  All  men 
in  Christendom  must  be  Christians  in  the  same 
way,  and  partake  in  the  common  experiences  and 
ordinances  prescribed  by  the  Savior,  or  they  are 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  379 

no  Christians  at  all.  We  will  not  undertake  to 
say  what  shall  be  the  fate  of  those  well-disposed 
persons  who  have  never  had  the  light  and  oppor- 
tunity to  become  identified  with  the  confessing 
people  of  God;  but  we  do  hold  that  he  who  can 
find  accepted  Christian  men  and  women  outside  of 
the  community  of  the  visible  Church  or  Churches, 
refusing  to  confess  Christ  before  men  in  his  own 
appointed  sacraments,  finds  what  does  not  exist. 
There  are  no  such  Christians ;  or  else  the  economy 
of  the  visible  Church  or  Churches  is  not  at  all  essen- 
tial to  Christianity,  and  may  be  cast  aside,  without 
detriment  to  our  immortal  hopes,  whenever  we  may 
see  fit.  No,  no !  "There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit; 
one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  All  the  saints 
have  been  *<  baptized  by  one  Spirit  into  one  body, 
and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit," — 
the  spirit  of  willing  and  hearty  obedience  to  "what- 
soever Christ  has  commanded."  "Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Sj)irit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  Except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you." 

There  is  often  also  a  very  dangerous  error  con- 
cealed in  the  distinction  which  some  are  so  fond 
of  making  between  the  visible  and  the  invisible 
Church.  It  is  true  that  many  hold  visible  Church- 
relations  who  are  not  living  members  of  the  Savior's 
mystical  body,  and  that  it  is  a  matter  hidden 
and  invisible  to  us  who  are  vital  and  effectual 
members  of  the  Church  and  who  are  not.  We 
may  form  a  proximate  judgment  in  the  case;  but 
we  cannot  always  know  the  facts.     But  the  visible 


380  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Church  is  always  supposed  to  embrace  the  invisible. 
Says  Ursinus,  *'•  The  invisible  Church  lies  concealed  in 
the  visible."  ''Whenever  we  think  of  the  Church, 
we  bring  before  our  minds  the  assemblage  of  those 
who  are  called,  which  is  the  visible  Church,"  says 
Melanchthon;  "nor  do  we  dream  that  any  of  the 
elect  are  elsewhere  than  in  this  visible  Church; 
for  God  may  not  be  invoked  nor  acknowledged 
otherwise  than  as  he  reveals  himselfj  nor  does  he 
reveal  himself  [for  the  salvation  of  men]  except  in  the 
visible  Church,  in  which  alone  the  voice  of  the 
gospel  sounds.  We  do  not  feign  some  other  in- 
visible Church."  (Loc.  Com.  vol.  i.  p.  283.)  And, 
especially  as  God  alone  can  distinguish  his  own 
true  people  from  formalists  and  hypocrites,  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  conceive  of  them  as  a  separate 
society  distinct  from  the  external  Church.  Even 
that  part  of  the  Church  which  has  passed  away 
into  the  invisible  world  cannot  be  separated  from 
that  visible  society  on  earth  in  which  all  the  saints 
in  heaven  once  had  their  places  and  in  their  time 
helped  to  fill  out  its  external  continuity.  The 
Church  is  not  to  be  conceived  of,  on  the  one  hand, 
as  consisting  of  a  system  of  mere  external  rites  and 
observances.  It  has  a  soul  as  well  as  a  body.  It 
involves  inward  faith  and  spiritual  communion  and 
graces  as  well  as  outward  ceremonies.  But  neither 
is  it  to  be  conceived  of,  on  the  other  hand,  as  having 
an  existence  apart  from  the  visible  appointments 
and  signs  by  which  alone  we  can  come  into  saving 
connection  with  it.  The  religion  of  Christ  takes 
into  its  essential  texture  a  visible  Church, — the 
organization  of  its  subjects  into  visible  fellowship 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  381 

with  each  other  and  sacramental  union  with  our 
ascended  Lord.  And  where  there  is  no  such  visible 
Church  there  is  no  Christian  and  no  Christianity. 

All  sacraments,  then,  are  for  Christians  as  such, 
and  not  only  for  Churchmen  as  distinguished  from 
inere  Christians.  Nay:  if  we  can  be  Christians 
entitled  to  heaven  without  communion  in  the  ordi- 
nances of  fellowship  and  confession  in  the  visible 
Church,  the  visible  Church  is  useless,  and  Baptists, 
instead  of  vindicating  ordinances  and  preserving 
them  from  contempt,  do  really  sink  them  down 
into  matters  of  indifference,  and  assume  a  ground 
upon  which  we  may  refuse  both  baptism  and  th« 
Supper  without  damage  to  our  prospects  for  eter- 
nity. From  such  theology  may  the  good  Lord 
preserve  us  and  his  professing  people  ! 

There  is  a  very  grave  consideration  urged  by 
Dr.  Fuller  in  favor  of  close,  exclusive  communion, 
which  deserves  to  be  noticed  here.  He  begs  "  in 
kindness  and  affection  to  submit  it  to  the  candor 
of  the  brethren."  It  is,  that  any  other  practice 
would  compel  him  to  "  receive  infants" !  and  to 
''admit  them,  though  the  very  Churches  in  which 
they  are  pronounced  members  would  not" !  (P. 
237.)  Surely  he  has  struck  upon  Gibraltar  now, 
and  how  can  he  be  expected  to  go  forward  in  the 
admission  of  any  but  Baptists  to  the  Lord's 
Supper?  Infants  would  come.  Fearful  thought! 
Let  Christendom  pause  and  consider  it.  Infants 
would  come ;  and  therefore  Baptists  are  compelled 
to  excommunicate  all  but  Baptists.  What  igno- 
rance has  for  centuries  pervaded  Christendom,  in 
that  the  Churches  have  not  excluded  all  but  their 


382  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

own  from  the  Lord's  table,  lest  infants  might  como 
from  some  sister  Church,  though  they  never  come  at 
home  !  Grave  argument !  We  leave  it  where  Dr. 
Fuller  has  so  affectionately  and  sex'iously  put  it, — 
"to  the  candor  of  our  brethren." 

It  is  further  urged  in  favor  of  the  Baptist  prac- 
tice in  communion  that  it  is  just  what  is  done  in 
all  other  denominations,  and  that  we  ought  not  to 
blame  them  for  what  we  ourselves  do.  Mr.  Booth 
thinks  that  "  the  judgment  and  conduct  of  Baptists 
relating  to  the  necessity  of  baptism  in  order  to 
communion  perfectly  coincide  with  the  sentiments 
and  practice  of  all  Pedobaptist  Churches."  (P.  12.) 
Now,  this  is  partly  true  and  partly  false.  It  is 
true  that  we  require  baptism  as  a  condition  of 
Church-membership  and  of  communion-pi'ivileges ; 
but  it  is  7iot  true  that  we  require  a  particular  7node 
of  baptism,  or  that  our  mere  opinion  concerning 
baptism  must  be  acceded  to  before  admission  to  the 
Loi'd's  table.  The  Baptist  differs  with  us  as  to  the 
nature,  subject,  and  mode  of  baptism;  and  yet  we 
do  not  exclude  him  from  the  communion.  We 
hold  his  responsibility  to  be  not  to  us,  but  to  his 
own  conscience  and  to  the  Lord  who  instituted  the 
feast;  and  hence  we  admit  him,  if  he  means  thereby 
to  pei'form  an  act  of  devotion  to  the  Savior.  But 
is  this  the  practice  of  Baptists?  By  no  means. 
It  is  not  mere  baptism  which  they  make  a  pre- 
requisite to  communion,  but  a  particular  mode  of 
baptism,  and  that  administered  only  after  a  certain 
period  of  the  individual's  life  has  expired.  They 
require  immersion,  and  that  performed  subsequent 
to  a  personal  profession  of  faith ;  we  demand  only 


TERMS    OF   COMMUNION.  383 

a  sincere  faith  in  Christ,  accompanied  with  obedi- 
ence to  Christ's  ordinances  as  the  applicant  in  his 
own  conscience  apprehends  them.  They  exclude 
all  except  the  avowed  and  active  abettors  of  their 
sectarian  opinions;  we  exclude  none  but  those 
excluded  by  all  acknowledged  Christians.  There 
is  certainly  a  very  wide  difference  here  between 
their  practice  and  our  own.  We  also  carry  into 
our  terms  of  communion  those  apostolic  precepts, 
"Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye,  but 
not  to  doubtful  disputations;"  "Receive  ye  one 
another,  as  Christ  also  received  us;"  "Why  tempt 
ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  dis- 
ciples, which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  are  able 
to  bear?"  Baptists,  however,  deny  that  these 
injunctions  have  any  reference  to  this  subject,  and 
refuse  to  admit  or  obey  them  in  reference  to  sacra- 
mental communion.  In  our  opinion,  Baptists  are 
as  much  in  error  as  they  suppose  us  to  be ;  yet  we 
are  glad  to  meet  them  at  the  Lord's  table,  whilst 
they  despise  our  invitations  and  peremptorily 
refuse  to  allow  us  to  sit  down  with  them.  Now, 
with  these  stubborn  facts  in  view,  to  say  that  the 
judgment  and  conduct  of  Baptists  on  this  subject 
are  perfectly  coincident  with  ours  is  a  gross  mis- 
representation,— an  egregious  mistake, — if  not 
something  a  great  deal  worse.  It  may  serve  to 
confuse  and  silence  the  ignorant;  but  it  is  not  the 
truth.  If  the  Baptists  proceed  upon  the  same 
principles  with  us,  then  let  them  invite  to  the 
Lord's  table  all  whom  they  regard  as  Christians, 
and  cease  to  excommunicate  "  some  of  the  noblest 


384  THE    BAPTIST   SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

lights  and  ornaments  of  Christianity"  because  they 
do  not  subscribe  to  Baptist  sectarian  opinions. 

But  none  of  these  considerations  reach  the  real 
ground  of  the  Baptist  ''judgment  and  conduct" 
upon  this  subject.  All  the  arguments  thus  far 
named  are  mere  after-thoughts,  vamped  up  in  the 
days  of  controversy  to  cover  the  weak  flanks  of  a 
miserable  sectarianism.  The  real  reason  of  their 
exclusiveness  remains  to  be  told.  That  reason  is 
that  they  are  compelled  to  exclude  all  but  Baptists 
from  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  compromise  their  doc- 
trine on  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  Slow  as 
they  are  to  say  it  and  cautious  as  they  are  in  coming 
to  the  point,  this  is  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter; 
and  they  cannot  deny  it.  In  some  shape  or  other 
all  their  advocates  have  been  forced  to  admit  it. 

Mr.  Booth,  after  considerable  circumlocution, 
thus  presents  the  case: — "We  cannot  admit  them 
[that  is.  Christians,  not  Baptists]  to  fellowship  with 
us  at  the  Lord's  table  without  contradicting  our 
PROFESSED  SENTIMENTS.  For  it  appears  to  us,  on 
the  most  deliberate  inquiry,  that  immersion  is  not  a 
mere  circumstance  or  a  mode  of  baptism,  but  essen- 
tial to  the  ordinance;  so  that,  in  our  judgment,  he 
who  is  7iot  immersed  is  not  baptized.  This  is  the 
PRINCIPLE  on  which  we  proceed  in  refusing  communion 
to  our  Pedobaptist  brethren."  (Pp.  12,  13.)  Mr.  Cur- 
tis's  elaborate  defence  of  close  communion,  with 
all  his  adroitness  in  attempting  to  put  the  matter 
on  a  different  basis,  goes  out  from  this  same  centre. 
In  replying  to  Eobert  Hall's  remark  that  "no 
Church  has  a  right  to  establish  terms  of  com- 
munion which  are  not  terms  of  salvation,"  he  says, 


TERMS    OF   COMMUNION.  385 

"If  this  were  true,  it  would  effectually  destroy  the 
Baptists  as  a  denomination."  (P.  139.)  Hence  his 
effort  to  sustain  close  communion.  It  is  essential 
to  the  sectarianism  of  the  Baptist  denomination. 
The  holy  sacrament  of  Jesus  must  be  harnessed 
down  in  this  way,  or  the  Baptist  sect  ceases ! 
Taking  Dr.  Fuller's  argument  all  in  all,  it  also 
sums  up  in  the  same  thing.  "What,  in  effect," 
says  he,  "is  the  remonstrance  we  continually 
address  to  our  brethren  ?  It  is  that  they  are  unbap- 
tized  [uni7nmersed'].  .  .  .  Now,  in  not  inviting  them 
to  the  Supper,  our  conduct  only  repeats  this  remon- 
strance,— repeats  it  silently  and  kindly,  but  emj)ha- 
tically.  To  invite  them  would  really  be  a  want  of 
love,  for  it  would  be  an  admission  that  they  are  bap- 
tized [immersedT^)  and  thus,  in  the  strongest  manner, 
im  would  contradict  our  declarations  and  confirm 
them  in  error."  (Pp.  239,  240.)  Dr.  Howell's 
whole  book  upon  this  subject  is  but  an  elaboration 
of  the  same  idea,  as  the  caj)tions  to  his  chapters 
will  show.  We  quote  a  few.  "Chapter  VIII.  We 
cannot  unite  with  Pedobaptista  in  sacramental 
communion  without  an  actual  abandonment  or 
practical  falsification  of  all  our  principles.  Chapter 
IX.  We  cannot  engage  in  communion  with  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren,  because  they  are  not  bap- 
tized, having  received  the  rite  in  infancy.  Chap- 
ters X.  and  XI.  We  cannot  commune  with  Pedo- 
baptists,  because,  not  having  been  immersed,  they  are 
not  baptized."  Thus  we  have  the  true  secret. 
Baptists  believe  that  baptizo  means  "immerse  and 
nothing  else;"  and,  rather  than  allow  that  they 
may  be  mistaken  in  this  interpretation,  they  take 

3.J 


886  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

the  harsh  alternative  of  excommunicating  millions 
upon  millions  of  pious  people  whom  they  call 
"  brethren"  and  expect,  as  they  tell  us,  to  meet  in 
heaven ! 

III.  Having  thus  ascertained  the  Baptist  terms 
of  communion  and  the  ground  upon  which  they 
are  urged  and  defended,  we  now  come  to  offer  a 
few  comments  upon  their  unchristian  and  dis- 
graceful implications. 

Dr.  Fuller  mentions  it  as  a  distinction  of  Baptists 
in  all  ages,  that  they  "  have  asserted  the  glorious 
right  of  liberty  of  conscience  for  every  man,  and 
have  sought  only  to  persuade  men  to  cast  off 
spiritual  tyranny,  Avhether  of  State,  or  creed,  or 
Church,  or  priest."  (P.  215.)  Professor  Curtis 
gives  "  freedom  of  conscience  and  religious  liberty" 
as  among  the  chief  of  "Baptist  Pi-inciples."  Wo 
tell  these  men,  in  view  of  what  appears  above,  that 
Baptists  of  their  sort,  in  all  ages,  have  been  the  advo- 
cates and  defenders  of  religious  proscription  and  intole- 
rance hardly  less  arrogant  than  that  which  makes 
Popery  the  loathing  of  the  earth.  They  may  call  this 
wholesale  slander,  base  and  unmitigated.  But  we 
cany  it  up  to  the  bar  of  public  judgment  and  the 
common  Christian  sense,  satisfied  that  the  decision 
must  be  with  us.  Some  Baptists  themselves  h^ve 
been  convinced  of  the  truth  of  what  we  have  here 
safd,  and  have  not  hesitated  to  declare  it  in  language 
equall}''  as  strong  as  that  which  we  have  employed. 

"  I  am  fully  persuaded,"  says  the  eloquent  and 
liberal  Baptist  preacher,  Eobert  Hall,  ''that  few 
of    our    brethren    have    duly   reflected    on    the 


TERMS    OF   COMMUNION.  387 

strong  resemblance  which  subsists  between  the 
pretensions  of  the  Church  of  Eome  and  the  prin- 
ciples implied  in  strict  communion, — both  equally 
intolerant;  the  one  armed  with  pains  and  penal- 
ties, the  other,  I  trust,  disdaining  such  aid;  the 
one  the  intolerance  of  power,  the  other  of  weak- 
ness." "  The  Eomish  Church,"  says  he,  "  pretends 
to  an  absolute  infallibility;  not,  however,  in  such 
a  sense  as  implies  an  authority  to  introduce  new 
doctrine,  but  merely  in  the  proposal  of  apostolic 
traditions  and  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
While  she  admits  the  Scripture  to  be  the  original 
rule  of  faith,  she  requires,  under  pain  of  excom- 
munication, that  the  sense  she  puts  on  its  words 
should  be  received  with  the  same  submission  with 
the  inspired  volume.  In  what  respects,  let  me  ask, 
is  the  conduct  of  the  strict  Baptists  different?  .  .  .  All 
that  infallibility  which  the  Church  of  Eome  pre- 
tends to  is  the  right  of  placing  her  interpretation 
of  Scripture  on  a  level  with  the  word  of  God.  She 
professes  to  promulgate  no  new  revelation,  but 
solely  to  render  her  sense  of  it  imperative  and 
binding.  And  if  we  presume  to  treat  oui-  fellow- 
Christians,  merely  because  they  differ  from  us  in 
their  construction  of  a  positive  precept,  as  un- 
worthy of  being  recognised  as  Christ's  disciples  and 
disqualified  for  the  communion  of  saints,  ave  defy 

ALL  THE  powers  OP  DISCRIMINATION  TO  ASCERTAIN 
THE  DIFFERENCE  OF  THE  TWO  CASES,  OR  TO  ASSIGN  A 
REASON  AVHY  WE  MUST  ASCRIBE  THE  CLAIM  OF  INFAL- 
LIBILITY TO  ONE  AND  NOT  TO  THE  OTHER." 

The  same  author  says,  further,  "Why  is  the  act 
of  debarring  every  other  denomination  from  admis- 


388  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

sion  [to  the  Supper]  not  a  punishment?  Solely 
because  Baptist  societies  are  too  few  and  too  insig- 
nificant to  enable  them  to  realize  the  effects  of  their 
system  in  its  full  extent.  Their  principle  involves 
an  ABSOLUTE  IXTEEDICT  of  Church-privHeges  to  the 
members  of  every  other  community ;  but,  being  an 
inconsiderable  minority,  there  are  not  wanting 
numerous  and  respectable  societies  who  stand 
ready  to  give  a  welcome  reception  to  the  outcasts 
and  to  succor  the  exiles.  That  their  rejection  is 
not  followed  by  its  natural  consequence — a  total 
privation  of  the  communion  of  saints — is  not  to  be 
ascribed  in  the  smallest  degree  to  the  liberality  or 
forbearance  of  strict  Baptists,  hut  solely  to  their 
imbecility.  The  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  they 
consider  as  null  and  void  when  attended  to  by  a 
Pedobaptist.  His  approach  to  the  table  is  abso- 
lutely prohibited  within  the  sphere  of  their  juris- 
diction; and,  should  their  principles  ever  obtain  a 
general  prevalence,  the  commemoration  of  the  love 
of  a  crucified  Savior  would  become  impracticable, 
except  to  persons  of  their  own  p>ersuasion.  Instances 
have  often  occurred  where  the  illiberal  practice 
against  which  we  are  contending  has  been  felt  to  be 
a  PUNISHMENT  of  no  ordinary  severity;  where  emi- 
nently holy  men  have  been  so  situated  that  the 
only  opportunity  they  possessed  of  celebrating  the 
passion  of  the  Redeemer  has  been  withheld,  and 
they  have  been  compelled  most  reluctantly  to  forego 
one  of  the  most  exalted  privileges  of  the  Church; 
nor  has  it  ever  been  known  that  compassion  for  the 
peculiar  hardships  of  the  case  was  suffered  to 
suspend  the  unrelenting  severity  of  the  sentence.     Let 


TERMS    OF   COMMUNION.  389 

me  ask  the  advocates  for  the  exclusive  system 
whether  they  would  be  moved  for  a  moment  to 
extend  their  indulgence  to  a  solitary  individual 
who  differed  with  them  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
although  he  was  so  circumstanced  as  to  render  a 
union  with  other  classes  of  Christians  impossible?" 
(Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  358,  450,  475.)  And  yet 
this  unrelenting  proscription  of  men  acknowledged 
to  be  saints  of  God  is  to  be  called  ''asserting  the 
glorious  right  of  liberty  of  conscience!" — "opposition 
to  all  spiritual  tyranny" ! !  Alas !  alas !  for  these 
boasted  apostles  of  freedom  of  conscience ! 

Eobert  Hall  says,  further, "  The  advocates  of  strict 
communion  are  not  engaged  in  preserving  their  own 
liberty,  but  in  an  attack  on  the  liberty  of  others; 
their  object  is  not  to  preserve  the  worship  in  which 
they  join  pure  from  contamination,  but  to  sit  in 

JUDGMENT  ON  THE  CONSCIENCES  OP  THEIR  BRETHREN, 

and  to  deny  them  the  privileges  of  the  visible  Church, 

ON  ACCOUNT   OF  A  DIFFERENCE   OF   OPINION  wMch  IS 

neither  imposed  on  themselves  nor  deemed  fundamental. 
They  propose  to  build  a  Church  upon  the  principle 
of  an  absolute  exclusion  of  a  multitude  of  societies, 
which  they  must  either  acknowledge  to  be  true 
Churches,  or  be  convicted  of  the  greatest  absurdity; 
while  for  conduct  so  monstrous  and  unnatural  they 
are  precluded  from  the  plea  of  necessity,  because 
no  attempt  is  made  by  Pedobaptists  to  modify 
their  worship  or  to  control  the  most  enlarged 
exercise  of  private  judgment.  .  .  .  It  is  not  a  de- 
fensive, but  an  offensive  measure ;  it  is  not  an  asser- 
tion of  Christian  liberty  by  resisting  encroachment, — 

IT    18    ITSELF    A    VIOLENT    ENCROACHMENT    ON    THE 
33« 


390  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

FREEDOM  OP  OTHERS,  Qii  effoH  TO  ENFORCE  a  Conform- 
ity to  Baptist  views."  (Hall,  vol.  i.  pp.  834, 335.)  These 
are  not  our  words.  "We  have  given  the  language  of 
one  of  the  most  holy,  observant,  eloquent,  and  con- 
scientious men  the  Baptist  societies  have  ever  pro- 
duced. And  if  it  does  not  fasten  down  on  Dr. 
Puller,  and  all  who  think  with  him,  the  charge  of 
intolerant  and  even  'persecuting  arrogance,  it  is 
useless  to  rely  upon  the  powers  of  reason  and 
common  sense  to  apprehend  truth. 

As  Protestants,  we  are  accustomed  to  demand 
of  Eomanists  whence  they  derive  the  right  to  de- 
cide authoritatively  against  those  who  conscien- 
tiously differ  from  them.  And  in  the  same  manner, 
we  ask  our  Baptist  friends  where  they  get  the 
warrant  to  draw  distinctions  between  God's  saints 
and  to  enforce  their  particular  views  of  baptism 
with  ecclesiastical  penalties?  They  pretend  to 
agree  that  we  are  Christians.  Mr.  Carson  says, 
"I  gladly  admit  that  many  who  differ  from  me 
with  respect  to  baptism  are  among  the  excellent  of 
the  earth."  Dr.  Puller  takes  up  the  same: — "I  re- 
joice to  know  that  in  Pedobaptist  Churches  there 
are  some  of  the  noblest  lights  and  ornaments  of 
Christianity."  And  Baptists  generally  profess  to 
have  no  difficulty  in  classing  many  Pedobaptists 
among  the  most  eminent  of  the  sons  of  God. 
What  right,  then,  have  they  to  reject  those 
whom  God  has  adopted?  Whence  have  they  au- 
thority to  prefer  the  weakest  and  most  incon- 
sistent member  of  Dr.  Puller's  congregation  to 
Brainerd,  Doddridge,  Baxter,  and  Arndt,  and  to 
Bay  to  him,  Come  and  partake  of  the  feast  Jesus 


TERMS    OF   COMMUNION.  391 

has  provided  for  his  disciples,  whilst  they  turn 
away  those  whose  lives  exhibit  the  most  varied 
and  elevated  forms  of  moral  grandeur,  missionary 
zeal,  and  even  martyr  constancy?  This  is  exer- 
cising a  legislative  power  so  high  and  awful  that  he 
who  assumes  it,  in  order  to  justify  such  conduct, 
"ought,"  says  Eobert  Hall,  "to  exhibit  his  creden- 
tials with  a  force  and  splendor  of  evidence  equal 
at  least  to  those  which  attested  the  divine  legation 
of  Moses  and  the  prophets,"  or  else  be  subject  to 
the  scorn  and  condemnation  of  all  right-thinking 
people,  as  an  usurper  seeking  to  "lord  it  over 
God's  heritage."  For,  "  by  repelling  and  discoun- 
tenancing those  whom  God  accepts,  to  dispute  the 
validity  of  his  seal,  and  to  subject  to  our  miserable 
scrutiny  pretensions  that  have  passed  the  ordeal 
and  received  the  sanction  of  Him  who  under- 
standeth  the  hearts,  we  should  have  just  reason  to 
tremble  for  the  consequences;  and,  with  all  our 
esteem  for  the  piety  of  many  strict  Baptists,  we 
conceive  it  no  injury  or  insult  to  put  up  the  prayer 
of  our  Lord  for  them: — Father ^  forgive  them;  for 
they  know  not  what  they  do!"  (Hall,  vol.  i.  p.  495.) 

Another  member  and  minister  of  the  Baptist 
denomination,  Mr.  Noel,  thus  writes : — "  Accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine  [put  forth  by  strict  Baptists], 
Pedobaptists  are  brethren,  yet  must  not  sit  down 
with  their  brothers  at  the  table  of  their  Elder 
Brother.  As  brethren  they  are  Christ's  disciples, 
and  therefore  commanded  by  him  to  eat  and  di-ink 
in  memory  of  him;  but  they  must  not  eat  and  drink 
with  their  fellow-servants.  They  are  welcome 
guests  to  their  Lord,  but  are  repelled  by  their 


392  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

fellow-guests.  Elsewhere  they  are  owned  to  be 
brethren,  but  the  chief  sign  of  brotherhood  must 
be  withheld  from  them.  They  may  lead  the 
prayers  of  their  fellow-Christians,  and  they  may 
instruct  the  Churches  as  enlightened  and  holy 
ministers  of  Christ;  yet  in  that  ordinance  which 
is  specially  appointed  to  be  a  sign  of  the  com- 
munion of  saints  and  the  unity  of  the  body,  they 
must  be  put  out,  as  though  they  were  not  members. 
"What  a  spectacle  is  thus  afforded  to  the  world, 
who  see  with  contempt  that  the  most  earnest 
followers  of  the  Eedeemer  cannot  even  commemo- 
rate his  death  together!  When  the  saints  of  Jesus 
are  thus  excluded  from  the  communion  of  any  of 
his  Churches,  are  not  those  who  put  them  out 
treading  in  the  steps  of  Diotrephes,  though  with  a 
different  spirit?  No :  it  is  replied,  'We  are  willing 
to  receive  all  who  appear  to  have  been  received  of 
God  to  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Supper; 
but  we  cannot  divide  the  one  from  the  other  with- 
out dispensing  with  an  institution  of  Christ.'  But 
this  is  no  reception  of  them.  They  can  no  more 
force  their  convictions  than  you  can ;  and  there- 
fore you  say  to  them,  in  effect,  Unless  you  will  fore- 
go what  you  believe  to  be  a  duty,  the  baptism  of  infants, 
and  accept  us  as  authoritative  expositors  of  Christ's 
doctrine,  we  must  expel  you  from  our  society  when  we 
commemorate  the  dying  love  of  our  Lord  and 
meet  as  brethren  in  his  name."  (Pp.  291,  292.) 

And  yet  they  who  take  this  ground  have  the 
effrontery  to  say  to  us  that  it  involves  no  breach 
of  charity,  no  want  of  "the  highest  and  noblest 
fellowship,"  and  no  entrenchment  upon  the  freest 


TERMS    OF   COMMUNION.  393 

operations  of  the  fondest  affection.  Yes !  they  will 
drive  us  away  from  the  Lord's  table  as  nothing 
better  than  vile  dogs,  and  yet  tell  us  that  they  are 
perfectly  bound  up  with  us  in  love !  Upon  this 
point  hear  again  the  distinguished  Robert  Hall : — 
"Were  the  children  of  the  same  parent,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  different  construction  they  put  on  a 
disputed  clause  in  their  father's  Avill,  to  refuse  to 
eat  at  the  same  table  or  to  drink  out  of  the  same 
cup,  it  ivould  be  ridiculous  for  them  to  pretend  that 
their  attachment  to  each  other  remained  undimin- 
ished; nor  is  it  less  so  for  Christians  to  assert  that 
their  withdrawing  from  communion  with  their 
brethren  is  no  interruption  to  their  mutual  har- 
mony and  affection.  It  is  a  serious  and  awful 
interruption,  and  will  ever  be  considered  in  that 
light.  ...  It  is  to  inflict  a  wound  on  the  very  heart 
of  charity;  and  if  it  is  not  being  guilty  of  beating 
our  fellow-servatit,  we  must  despair  of  ascertaining 
the  meaning  of  terms.  ...  It  is  equally  repugnant 
to  reason  and  offensive  to  charity.  .  .  .  It  is  the  very 
essence  of  schism."  (Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  323, 331, 
333.) 

Dr.  Fuller  agrees  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
social  ordinance.  Among  other  offices,  it  is  de- 
signed to  serve  as  a  solemn  mode  of  Christian 
recognition,  by  which  we  show  that  we  are  "one 
body"  as  we  partake  of  "one  bread."  It  is  God's 
own  sacrament  of  Christian  fellowship;  and  to  say 
that  to  disown  us  there  is  no  disownment  of  our 
Christianity,  and  no  breach  of  brotherly  affection, 
is  to  try  to  persuade  us  that  black  is  white  or  that 
bitter  is  sweet.     Nay :  they  that  do  it,  says  Robert 


394  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

Hal],  to  be  consistent  with  themselves,  must  im- 
pute to  us  a  degree  of  delinquency  equal  to  that 
■which  attaches  to  the  most  flagi-ant  breaches  of 
morality,  and  deem  us  equally  guilty  in  the  sight 
of  God  with  those  unjust  persons,  idolaters, 
revelers,  and  extortioners,  who  are  declared  inca- 
pable of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  For  if  the  guilt 
imputed  in  this  instance  is  acknowledged  to  be  of 
a  totally  different  order  from  that  which  belongs 
to  the  openly  vicious  and  profane,  how  come  we  to 
be  included  in  the  same  sentence?  and  where  is 
the  equity  of  animadverting  upon  unequal  faults 
with  equal  severity?  (Vol.  i.  p.  338.) 

Mr.  N^oel  has  put  the  case  in  its  true  position 
where  he  says,  "If  the  Pedobaptist  be  a  disobe- 
dient unbeliever,  reject  him  from  the  Lord's  table, 
and  also  from  eveiy  other  function  and  privilege 
exclusively  appropriated  to  believers;  if  he  be 
an  obedient  believer,  admit  him  to  these  func- 
tions, but  with  them  admit  him  also  to  the  Lord's 
table.  But  how  can  the  godly  Pedobaptist  be  ex- 
cluded on  these  terms?  He  is  no  more  a  disobe- 
dient unbeliever  than  the  strictest  of  the  Baptists 
who  would  exclude  him.  The  reason  why  he  is  a 
Pedobaptist  is,  that  he  believes  the  baptism  of 
infants  to  be  according  to  the  will  of  Christ.  What 
person  was  ever  excluded  from  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  the  apostolic  Churches  for  doing  all  that  he 
believed,  after  searching  of  the  Scriptures  and 
listening  to  apostles,  to  be  according  to  the  will  of 
Christ?  What  earnest  and  upright  believer  was 
ever  in  those  days  excluded?  What  member  of 
one   Church  was    refused    communion   with   the 


TERMS    OF    COMMUNION.  395 

members  of  another?  In  what  apostolic  Church 
were  such  men  as  Baxter,  Howe,  Flavel,  Dod- 
dridge and  Whitefield,  Edwards  and  Payson, 
Fletcher,  Martin,  Brainerd,  and  Chalmers,  men  full 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  walking  with  God 
and  laboring  for  Christ,  refused  such  communion  ? 
It  was  reserved  for  worse  days  to  see  so  strange  a 
spectacle.''  (P.  293.) 

"Consider/'  continues  this  same  author,  "the 
real  character  of  this  exclusion.  Those  only  are 
ordered  in  the  word  of  God  to  be  excluded  who  are 
heretical  in  doctrine,  vicious  in  their  practice, 
schismatical  in  temper,  who  injure  their  brethren, 
or  are  openly  disobedient  to  the  commands  of 
Christ.  But  you  exclude,  in  company  with  all 
these,  some  of  the  most  loyal,  the  most  active,  the 
bravest,  and  the  most  loving  disciples  of  Christ. 
They  may,  like  Enoch,  walk  with  God;  like  Abra- 
ham, sacrifice  all  that  is  dearest  to  them  to  serve 
him;  like  Moses,  trample  under  feet  the  world's 
most  alluring  bribes;  like  Paul,  consecrate  the 
noblest  faculties  with  untiring  ardor  to  the  cause 
of  their  Redeemer;   and  yet,  because  they  are  not 

Baptists,  [SIMPLY  AND  ONLY  BECAUSE  THEY  ARE   NOT 

Baptists,]  you  will  exclude  them  from  the  table  of  the 
Lord.  You  do  this  because  they  will  follow  what 
they  believe  to  be  the  will  of  Christ,  the  meaning 
of  his  command,  and  the  practice  of  his  apostles; 
you  do  this  because  they  do  just  what  you  do  your- 
selves,— since  you  will  baptize  believers  alone, 
because  you  think  that  Christ  requires  it,  and  they 
will  baptize  infants,  because  they  think  that  he 
requires  it.     You  do  this,  therefore,  on  a  principle 


396  THE    BAPTIST    SYSTEM    EXAMINED. 

which  would  justify  their  exclusion  of  you;  which 
proscribes  all  communion  among  believers,  and 
would  substitute  submission  to  human  authority 
for  entire,  unlimited  submission  to  the  authority  of 
Christ.  This  cannot  be  right  :  a  more  brotherly 
course  is  demanded  by  the  plain  precepts  of  Scrip- 
ture, by  the  clear  proofs  of  faith  and  love  in  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren,  by  the  duty  of  independent 
judgment  inculcated  on  all."  (Pp.  300,  301.) 

We  therefore  hold  the  Baptist  community  to  it, 
that  to  disown  us  in  the  celebrations  of  the  Supper 
is  a  stab  at  the  unity  of  Christ,  a  violent  and 
unchristian  unbrotherliness,  which  is  really  a  dis- 
owning us  altogether.  There  is  no  other  alterna- 
tive. He  that  is  not  fit  for  this  communion  is  not 
fit  for  any  other  communion  of  a  Christian  kind. 
He  that  is  not  fit  to  eat  and  drink  in  memory  of 
the  Savior,  according  to  that  Savior's  command,  is 
not  fit  to  die  or  prepared  for  the  judgment.  The 
terms  of  communion  on  earth  cannot  be  stricter 
than  the  terms  of  communion  in  heaven.  If  we 
are  not  qualified  to  sit  down  with  Dr.  Fuller  and 
his  Baptist  friends  in  Baltimore,  we  are  not  quali- 
fied to  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.  If  Baptists  have  the  right 
and  are  in  duty  bound  to  exclude  us  from  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  must  be  a  divine  right  and  a 
command  of  God  himself;  and  if  such  are  God's 
commands  as  to  exclude  Luther,  Melanchthon, 
Howe,  Leighton,  Brainerd,  and  others  like  them, 
from  the  earthly  communion,  it  is  utter  folly  to 
suppose  God  so  inconsistent  with  himself  as  to 
receive  these  men  to  the  sublimer  communion  in 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  397 

his  own  high  abode.  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  he  can- 
not admit  such  men  to  the  Holy  Supper,  because 
this  would  be  to  pronounce  them  qualified  for 
membership  in  the  Church.  His  language  of 
course  implies  that  they  are  not  members  of  the 
Churchy  and  that  they  are  unfit  to  be  recognised 
as  members.  But  to  attack  their  qualification  for 
membership  in  the  Church  militant  is  at  once  to 
impugn  their  hopes  of  admission  into  the  Church 
triumphant,  or  else  to  assume  the  absurd  position 
that  men  may  be  in  all  respects  worthy  to  "walk 
with  Christ  in  white"  illustrious  among  his  ran- 
somed saints,  and  yet  not  worth}'-  to  sit  down  and 
partake  of  his  earthly  sacraments !  "  Transuh- 
stantiation,"  says  Eobert  Hall,  "presents  nothing 
more  revolting  to  the  dictates  of  common  sense."  (Vol.  i. 
p.  499.) 

We  do  not  hesitate,  therefore, — for  we  owe  it  to 
the  truth  and  to  the  public, — to  arraign  these  Bap- 
tist terms  of  communion  as  savoring  of  Antichrist, 
and  presenting  an  unqualified  outrage  on  all  Chris- 
tian unity  and  charity.  The  common  Christian 
sense  and  heart  revolt  at  them.  Baptists  them- 
selves must  do  violence  to  all  the  instincts  and 
feelings  implanted  by  the  gospel  in  the  soul  before 
they  can  adopt  them.  Dr.  Dowling  apologizes  for 
Mr.  Noel's  opposition  to  close  communion  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  weak  enough  to  follow  his 
Christian  impulses !  "We  cannot  but  think,"  says 
he,  "that  the  amiable  author  has  consulted  the 
promptings  of  his  own  kind  and  benevolent  heart, 
glowing  with  love  to  every  disciple  of  Jesus."  So, 
then,  according  to  Mr.  Dowling,  close  communion 

34 


898  THE   BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED 

is  a  thing  which  cannot  grow  out  of  a  kind,  be- 
nevolent heart, — out  of  a  heart  glowing  with  love 
to  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  It  must  find  origin  some- 
where else.  Dr.  Fuller  makes  a  similar  conces- 
sion : — "I  myself/'  says  he,  "was  once  strongly 
opposed  to  this  practice  [of  close  communion],  and 
verily  thought,  when  I  united  with  the  Baptists, 
that  I  ought  to  do  many  things  against  it,  which 
also  I  did.  Soon,  however,  I  was  made  to  feel 
that  a  Christian  is  to  obey  not  his  wishes  and 
feelings,  and  that  principle  required  me  to  confonn 
to  this  custom.  This  conclusion  I  arrived  at  most 
reluctantly  and  mutinously."  (P.  219.)  Thus, 
while  yet  his  first  love  was  unsullied, — while  yet 
in  the  youthful  tenderness  and  pristine  purity  of 
his  Christian  experience, — it  was  offensive  to  his 
heart  and' conscience  to  think  of  excommunicating 
so  many  myriads  of  God's  saints.  Baptists  them- 
selves, then,  being  judges,  their  practice  in  com- 
munion is  totally  at  war  with  all  the  generous 
impulses  which  the  Spirit  of  God  plants  in  the 
bosom  of  the  new  convert.  No  Christian  man 
who  has  his  heart  in  the  right  place  can  adopt  it 
without  violence  to  his  own  better  feelings.  Dr. 
Fuller  even  now,  though  "  sorry  to  find  such  a  man 
as  Baptist  Noel  advocating  open  communion,"  declares 
that  if  he  were  at  liberty  to  give  vent  to  the  feel- 
ings of  his  heart  he  would  joyfully  break  down  the 
fence  and  invite  all.  Why  not,  then,  cherish  and 
follow  these  holy  impulses?  Why  thus  grieve  and 
mortify  the  Spirit  for  the  sake  of  the  interests  of  a 
sect  or  the  support  of  a  dogma  which  we  have 
shown  to  be  so  unfounded  and  so  dangerous  ?    God 


TERMS   OP   COMMUNION.  399 

certainly  has  not  written  in  his  "living  epistles" 
what  he  contradicts  in  his  word.  And  if,  at  the 
expense  of  all  their  better  impulses,  at  the  risk 
of  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  with  a  magisterial 
arrogance  akin  to  Popery  itself.  Baptists  still  per- 
sist in  disallowing  to  us  the  right  to  eat  and  drink 
as  Christ  commanded,  in  memory  of  him,  let  them 
not  think  hard  of  it  when  we  meet  them  as  we 
would  meet  any  other  railers  at  our  faith  or  assail- 
ants of  our  hope.  We  cannot  be  at  peace  with 
those  who  assume  an  attitude  so  lordly,  and  would 
stab  us  in  a  place  so  vital.  To  call  us  saints  of 
God,  and  yet  to  assume  authority  to  exclude  us 
from  the  communion-table,  is  a  thing  for  which 
outward  kisses  and  professions  of  fraternity  will 
not  atone.  In  point  of  fact,  Baptist  societies  are 
too  imbecile  to  make  their  principles  effectually 
inconvenient  to  us.  It  is  only  in  point  oi  principle 
that  we  speak  of  their  conduct  as  offensive  and 
reprehensible.  We  can  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  with- 
out seeking  it  from  them.  But  for  them  to  call  us 
sons  whilst  treating  us  as  aliens,  and  to  pronounce  us 
saints  whilst  rejecting  us  as  pagans,  we  will  hold 
to  be  unchristian,  inconsistent,  and  repugnant  to 
common  sense  j  and  we  will  not  be  kept  by  honeyed 
verbal  caresses  from  denouncing  it  as  God  and 
reason  require  that  it  should  be  denounced.  "  To 
disown  those  whom  Christ  acknowledges,"  says 
Mr.  Carson,  "is  antichristian  disobedience  to  Christ. 
...  To  set  at  naught  the  weakest  of  Christ's  little 
ones,"  says  he,  "I  call  not  illiberal,  but  unchristian." 
(P.  5.)  We  hold  the  arbitrary  exclusion  of  us  from 
the  communion  as  a  disowning  of  us  and  a  setting 


400  THE  BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

of  US  at  naught.  No  ingenuity  on  earth  can  reduce 
it  to  any  thing  less.  Hall,  and  Carson,  and  Noel, 
and  all  the  best  and  most  distinguished  Baptists  in 
Europe,  have  seen  this,  and  felt  it,  and  acknow- 
ledged it.  We  see  it,  and  know  it,  and  feel  it,  as 
every  candid  Christian  must.  And  if  Baptists 
here,  to  their  excommunication  of  us,  will  continue 
to  add  a  mockery  of  our  common  sense,  by  urging 
themselves  upon  our  Christian  regard  by  telling 
us  what  a  tender  Christian  affection  they  bear 
toward  us,  let  them  not  complain  if  we  hold  them 
to  be  either  blind  fanatics  deceiving  themselves, 
or  sectarian  hypocrites  seeking  to  impose  on  our 
credulity. 

We  know  that  our  Baptist  friends  will  pro- 
nounce such  sentiments,  as  they  have  already  pro- 
nounced them,  unchristianly  severe.  But  they  are 
not  more  severe  or  unchristian,  their  own  men  being 
judges,  than  the  sentence  of  excommunication 
which  they  hold  with  relentless  rigor  over  hosts 
of  acknowledged  saints  of  God.  We  regret  to  be 
driven  to  make  such  comments  upon  the  conduct 
and  opinions  of  any  ''who  profess  and  call  them- 
selves Christians."  We  would  fain  take  them  by 
the  hand  and  walk  with  them  upon  the  highway 
of  a  common  Christianity.  We  would  cheerfully 
concede  to  them  the  utmost  freedom  of  conscience 
and  liberty  to  administer  their  baptisms  in  any 
mode  they  may  see  fit,  and  still  esteem  them 
entitled  to  our  Christian  regard.  But  Avhen  they 
claim  infallibility  for  their  interpretation  of  God's 
word,  as  they  do  by  seeking  to  enforce  that  inter- 
pretation by  the  pains  of  excommunication,  duty 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  401 

to  God,  to  ourselves,  and  to  our  children  demands 
of  us  to  treat  such  pretensions  in  Baptists  just  as 
we  treat  similar  pretensions  in  Papists.  We  can- 
not have  respect  to  persons  in  things  which  thus 
touch  the  vitals  of  our  Christianity.  To  tell  us 
that  we  are  flagrant  sinners  and  damnable  here- 
tics for  baptizing  our  babes,  and  that  we  are 
alarmingly  disobedient  to  a  positive  command  of 
Christ  because  we  refuse  to  disown  our  baptism  as 
profanity  by  coming  to  them  to  be  immersed,  and 
"emphatically  to  repeat  all  this,"  as  Dr.  Fuller 
says  they  do,  amid  the  solemnities  of  the  Holy 
Supper,  by  sternly  refusing  to  let  us  participate, 
and  then  to  seek  to  quiet  indignation  by  outside 
palaver  about  our  being  saints  and  the  noblest 
lights  and  ornaments  of  Christianity,  is  not  simply 
ridiculous:  it  is  mockery,  a  disgrace  to  any  man's 
profession,  an  outrage  upon  common  sense  which 
we  cannot  be  expected  to  wink  at,  and  which 
we  will  never  cease  to  stigmatize  as  it  deserves. 

In  the  name  of  God,  we  therefore  charge  all 
Baptists,  and  all  with  sympathies  for  the  Baptist 
system,  as  they  shall  give  account  in  the  dreadful 
judgment,  to  give  to  these  things  a  careful  and 
honest  consideration.  We  adjure  them,  in  the 
name  of  all  that  is  good  and  holy,  to  show  how 
that  system  can  be  of  God  which  drives  to  the 
enormous  extremities  of  uncharity  and  jDresump- 
tion  involved  in  their  terms  of  communion.  It 
can  be  no  advantage  to  them  or  us  to  cheat  our- 
selves with  lies:  therefore  let  them  look  for  the 
real  truth,  and  decide  before  Heaven  whether  they 
can  any  longer  give  their  sanction  and  influence 

34* 


402  THE   BAPTIST   SYSTEM   EXAMINED. 

to  inconsistencies  and  wrongs  so  utterly  unfounded 
both  in  reason  and  Scripture.  We  live  in  trying 
times.  The  final  battles  between  truth  and  error 
are  being  fought.  The  powers  of  the  heavens  are 
shaking  and  the  foundations  of  the  eai'th  are  being 
turned  up.  "The  time  is  come  that  judgment 
must  begin."  Let  men  beware,  then,  how  they 
tamper  with  the  fundamental  laws  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  or  legislate  terms  of  communion  for  the 
benefit  of  a  sect,  or  imitate  the  errors  and  assump- 
tions of  the  "Man  of  Sin."  Above  all,  let  no  man, 
at  this  eleventh  hour  of  the  world,  presume  to  re- 
move and  re-arrange  "the  ancient  landmarks" 
which  have  been  standing  firm  in  their  places  for 
nearly  a  score  of  centuries.  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord :  Stand  ye  in  the  ways,  and  see,  and  ask  for 
the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and  walk 
therein."  "Stand  fast  therefore  in  the  liberty 
WITH  WHICH  Christ  hath  made  us  free,  and  be 

NOT  ENTANGLED  AGAIN  WITH  THE  YOKE  OF  BOND- 
AGE." 

Our  review  is  finished.  We  have  given  our 
testimony.  May  God  bless  it  to  the  good  of  his 
Church  and  people!  The  time  will  come  when  it 
will  be  thought  strange  that  such  an  essay  should 
ever  have  been  called  for.  Truth  must  be 
triumphant.  The  flimsy  sophistry  and  the  un- 
blushing impudence  by  which  men  have  un- 
wittingly or  otherwise  sought  to  obscure  it,  and 
the  tedious  processes  of  reasoning  by  which  such 
attempts  are  opposed,  will  soon  be  alike  forgotten 
amid  the  coming  victories  of  a  liberal  and  un- 
stinted Christianity.     Before  the  brightness  of  the 


TERMS   OF   COMMUNION.  403 

Savior's  appearing  all  these  religious  controversies 
shall  vanish.  From  Jerusalem  round  about  to 
Illyrieum,  and  from  the  rivers  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth,  there  shall  yet  "be  one  fold  and  one  Shep- 
herd." And  in  joyful  confidence  we  await  the 
coming  time,  when  from  the  dwellers  in  the 
valleys,  and  caught  up  by  the  inhabitants  of  the 
hills,  and  echoed  by  the  islands  over  all  the  seas, 
shall  be  heard  the  apostolic  chant  of  Christian 
unity: — "One  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  op  all,  who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  all." 


THE   END. 


8TERE0TTPED  BT  L.  JOHNSON  k  CO. 
PniLADELPaiA. 


CATALOGUE 


OF 


STANDARD    LUTHERAN 

AND 

VALUABLE  MISCELLANEOUS  WORKS, 

PUBLISHED,   AND  OFFERED  FOR  SALE  BT 

T.    NEWTON    KUETZ, 

PUBLISHER,  BOOKSELLER  AND  STATIONER, 

NO.  151  WEST  PRATT  STREET,  BALTIMORE,  Md. 


Orders  for  any  of  the  Books  ia  the  following  Catalogue  (which 
can  be  sent  per  mail  at  the  rate  of  one  cent  per  oz.  if  pre-paid), 
or  for  anything  else  in  the  Book  and  Stationery  line,  will  be 
promptly  attended  to  if  addressed  to  T.  NEWTON  KURTZ, 
No.  151  Pratt  Street,  Baltimore,  Md. 

THE  GENERAL  SYNOD'S 
STANDARD    ENGLISH    LITURGY, 

for  the  use  of  Evangelical  Lutheran  Churches  in  the  United  States  j 
two  editions — 12mo.  and  octavo. 

The  new  GERMAN  LITURGY  (prepared  b)^  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod),  12mo.  and  large  8vo.  bound  in  the  various  styles,  also  for 
sale  at  the  publisher's  prices. 


48mo. 

or 

24mo. 

a 

12mo. 

a 

8vo. 

ii 

ENGLISH    LUTHERAN    HYMN-BOOKS. 

GENERAL  SYNOD'S  STANDARD  EDITIONS— Of  which  there  are 
four  editions  published,  viz .: 

miniature  edition, 
medium        " 
large  " 

pulpit  " 

Each  size  is  bound  iu  various  styles,  and  sold  entirely  for  cash. 

GERMAN    LUTHERAN    HYMN-BOOKS. 

EVANG.  LIEDER-SAMMLUNG— General  Synod's  standard  edition. 
DEUTCHES  GESANGBUCH— Pennsylvania  Synod's  edition. 
GEMEINSCHAFTLICHES  GESANGBUCH— New  York  or  Union 
edition. 

ENGLISH    LUTHERAN    SUNDAY-SCHOOL 
HYMN-BOOK. 

With  a  view  to  the  more  extensive  use  of  this  Hymn-Book  in  our 
Sunday-Schools,  the  prices  have  been  much  reduced,  and  they  are 
now  offered  at  a  very  small  advance  on  the  prime  cost ;  and  as  there 
is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  used  altogether  in  our  Sunday- 
Schools  (for  the  book  is  as  well  adapted  for  the  purpose  as  any  pub- 
lished in  the  country),  we  trust  our  Superintendents  and  Teachers 
will  make  an  effort  to  introduce  it  generally. 

It  is  bound  in  various  styles. 

GERMAN    LUTHERAN    SUNDAY-SCHOOL 
HYMN-BOOK. 

Authorized  to  be  published  by  the  Penn.  Synod — 32mo.,  half  roan. 

ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  CATECHISMS. 

LUTHER'S  SMALLER  CATECHISM— Gen.  Synod's stoncZard edition. 

LUTHER'S  SHORTER  CATECHISM— Illustrated  by  additional 
Questions  and  Answers,  by  J.  G.  Morris,  D.D.,  18mo.,  half  sheep. 

THE  SERIAL  CATECHISM,  or  Progressive  (Religious)  Instructor 
for  Children,  prepared  with  a  special  view  to  Infant  and  Sunday- 
Schools,  in  two  numbers.  They  can  be  had  separately  or  bound 
together. 

A  SHORT  EXPLANATION  OF  LUTHER'S  SMALLER  CATE 
CHISM,  with  Scripture  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  prepared  by  Rev. 
Dr.  Mann,  and  published  by  the  authority  of  the  Synod  of  Penn- 


.  sylvania,  for  the  use  of  Families,  Catechumens,  and  Sunday- 
Schools — 18mo.,  half  morocco. 

GERMAN  LUTHERAN  CATECHISMS. 

DR.  LUTHER'S  KLEINER  CATECHISMUS— West  Pennsylvania 
Synod's  new  and  improved  edition,  containing  the  Formula  of 
Discipline,  Augsburg  Confession,  &c.     18mo.,  half  sheep. 

KURZE  ERKLARUNG  DES  KLEINEN  KATECHISMUS.  Dr. 
Martin  Luther's,  mit  Beygefugten  Bibelstellen  Zum  Gebrauche. 
In  Familien,  fur  Confirmanden-Unterricht,  Katechisation,  und 
Sonntagsschulen.  Herausgegeben  mit  Kirchlicher  Genehmigung. 
This  is  the  Explanation  of  Luther^s  Smaller  Catechism,  by  Rev.  Dr. 
Mann,  in  German,  and  authorized  to  be  published  by  the  Pena- 
sylvania  Synod.     18mo.     half  roan. 

LUTHERAN   PRAYER-BOOK. 

For  the  use  of  Families  and  Individuals,  with  In- 
troductory Remarks  on  Family  Prayer,  together 
with  a  selection  of  176  hymns,  with  Music  or 
Tunes  adapted  to  them.  By  B.  Kurtz,  D.D. 
Second  edition^  revised,  enlarged,  and  mucJi  im- 
proved. 

"This  Prayer-Book  has  been  prepared  mainly  for  the  English 
portion  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  yet  it  is  believed  nothing  will  be 
found  in  it  to  prevent  its  free  use  in  any  Protestant  Christian  family. 
In  the  German  language  we  are  abundantly  supplied  with  such  helps; 
but  in  English,  a  general  and  complete  Prayer  Book,  adapted  to 
daily  devotion,  to  special  occasions,  and  to  every  emergency,  has 
thus  far  remained  a  desideratum,  which  it  has  been  our  aim  to 
supply.  It  is,  therefore,  hoped  that  the  Lutheran  Church  especially 
will  encourage  this  enterprise." — Extract  from  the  Author^s  Preface. 

The  rapid  sale  of  the  first  edition  (nearly  4000  copies)  of  this  work, 
and  the  favor  with  which  it  has  been  received  by  the  Church  gene- 
rally, has  induced  the  publisher  to  have  it  thoroughly  revised,  en- 
larged, and  greatly  improved,  and  it  is  now  believed  to  be  equal,  and 
in  some  respects  superior  to  any  similar  work  published  in  the 
English  language. 

It  is  a  large  duodecimo  volume,  of  nearly  600  pages,  printed  on 
large,  dear  type,  and  bound  in  various  styles.  The  following  is  a 
synopsis  of  the  contents : 


A  Valuable  Table  to  guide  in  reading  the  Hoi)-  Scriptures  system- 
atically ;  and  also  References  to  select  portions  of  the  same. 

Introduction — Prayer  in  all  its  Forms. 

Morning  and  Evening  Prayers,  whh  Scripture  (reading)  Lessons 
for  every  day  for  eight  weeks. 

Prayers  for  Particular  Days. 

Occasional  and  Special  Prayers  and  Thanksgivings. 

Prayers  before  and  after  Meals. 

Prayers  for  Children. 

Prayers  for  Little  Children,  in  prose  and  verse. 

Form  for  opening  Sunday- Schools,  with  Prayers  annexed. 

A  selection  of  176  HYMNS,  with  61  popular  TUNES  adapted  to 
them. 

WHY  ARE  YOU  A  LUTHERAN?  or  a  Series  of  Dissertations, 
explanatory  of  the  Doctrines,  Government,  Discipline,  Liturgical 
Economy,  Distinctive  Traits,  &c.,  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  United  States.  By  B.  Kurtz,  D.D.,  with  an  Intro- 
duction by  John  G.  Morris,  D.D.     12mo. 

"  We  believe  that  the  extensive  circulation  and  perusal  of  this  pub- 
lication (  Why  are  You  a  Lutheran  ?)  among  our  people,  will  be  the 
means  of  rectifying  many  mistakes,  and  diffusing  correct  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  Lutheranism;  and  that  its  general  distribution  will 
also  tend  to  the  prevention  and  removal  of  unfounded  prejudices  in 
the  case  of  many  candid  and  serious  persons  of  other  denominations, 
who  are  willing  to  investigate  before  they  censure  or  condemn." 

The  above  is  an  extract  from  a  Recommendation  signed  by  many 
of  our  most  eminent  ministers,  such  as  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  Dr. 
Reynolds,  Dr.  Krauth,  Dr.  Bachman,  Dr.  Morris,  Dr.  H.  N.  Pohlman, 
Dr.  S.  W.  Harkey,  the  late  Dr.  E.  Keller,  Revs.  P.  Rizer,  W.  A. 
Passavant,  J.  Z.  Senderling,  S.  R.  Boyer,  F.  R.  Anspach,  John  Heck, 
A.  Babb,  A.  H.  Lochraan,  &c.  It  is  bound  in  various  styles,  and 
sold  at  reduced  prices. 

AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM  VINDICATED!  or  an  Impartial 
Examination  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols,  on  certain  Disputed 
Topics,  including  a  Reply  to  Rev.  VV.  J.  Mann's  ''Plea  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession,"  published  by  the  "  Lutheran  Board  of  Pub- 
lication."    By  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.D. — 12mo.  cloth, 

ELEMENTS  OF  POPULAR  THEOLOGY— With  special  reference 
to  the  Doctrines  of  the  Reformaticni,  as  avowed  before  the  Diet  at 
Augsburg,  in  MDXXX,  by  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.D.— 8vo.  sheep. 

The  same  work — abridged,  and  adapted  particularly  to  use  in  the 
Lutheran  Church.     12mo.,  cloth. 

THE  AMERICAN  LUTHERAN  CHURCH— Historically,  Doctri- 
nally,  and  Practically  delineated  in  several  occasional  Discourses, 
by  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.D. — 12mo.,  cloth. 


THE  LUTHERAN  MANUAL  ON  SCRIPTURAL  PRLNCIPLES; 
or,  The  Augsburg  Confession  illustrated  and  sustained,  chiefly  by 
Scripture  proofs,  and  extracts  from  Standard  Lutheran  Theologians 
of  Europe  and  America:  together  with  the  Formula  of  Govern- 
ment and  Discipline  adopted  by  the  General  Synod  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States,  by  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
D.D.— 12mo.,  cloth. 

SCHMUCKER  ON  THE  REFORMATION— 18mo.,  cloth. 

SCHMUCKER'S  PORTRAITURE  OF  LUTHERANISM— 18mo. 

DEFINITE  PLATFORM— Doctrinal  and  Disciplinarian,  for  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  District  Synods,  constructed  in  accordance  with 
the  Principles  of  the  General  Synod. — thin  12rao. 

TO  ROME  AND  BACK  AGAIN,  OR  THE  TWO  PROSELYTES. 
By  J.  G.  Morris,  D.D.— 12rao.,  cloth. 

THE  BLIND  GIRL  OF  WITTENBERG;  A  Life-Picture  of  the 
Times  of  Luther  and  the  Reformation.  From  the  German,  by 
J.  G.  Morris,  D.D.     12mo.,  cloth. 

THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  ARNDT— Author  of  the  Work  on  "True 
Christianity."  By  John  G.  Morris,  D.D.  18mo.,  cloth,  with  a 
correct  portrait  of^ARNOT. 

This  work  is  a  biography  of  one  of  the  ablest  men  and  most  dis- 
tinguished servants  of  God  the  world  ever  produced,  and  is  now 
offered  for  the  first  time  in  the  English  language.  It  should  be  read 
by  every  Lutheran  and  Christian  in  the  land. 

THE  CATECHUMENS  AND  COMMUNICANT'S  COMPANION. 

For  the  use  of  young  persons  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  receiving 
instruction  preparatory  to  Confirmation  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
with  forms  of  Prayer  for  one  week,  and  special  cases  and  occa- 
sions. By  J.  G.  Morris,  D.D.  Third  edition,  revised  and  corrected, 
ISmo.,  cloth. 

EXPOSITION  OF  THE  GOSPELS— Lf<ifce  and  /oAn— Designed  for 
the  use  of  Families,  Bible  Classes,  and  Sunday  Schools. — By  Rev. 
J.  G,  Morris,  D.D.  and  Rev.  Charles  A.  Smith,  D.D.,  12mo.  cloth. 

THE  CHARACTER  AND  VALUE  OF  AN  EVANGELICAL 
MINISTRY,  and  the  Duty  of  the.  Church  in  Regard  to  it.  By  Rev. 
Simeon  W.  Harkey,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Illinois  State 
University — ISmo.  cloth. 

"  The  writer  of  this  work  believes  that  the  greatest  want,  as  well 
as  the  greatest  hope  and  the  greate.st  blessing  of  this  country  and  of 
the  world,  is  a  faithful  and  well-qualified  Evangelical  Ministry.  So 
deeply  is  he  convinced  of  this,  that  he  has  solemnly  consecrated  the 

1* 


6 

remainder  of  his  life,  be  it  worth  mwch  or  little,  to  the  great  work  of 

increasing  the  number  of  true  ministers  of  Christ My 

object  lias  "been  to  do  good — to  stir  up  '  the  pure  minds  of  ministers 
and  people  by  way  of  remembrance,'  and  to  come  to  the  help  of  my 
brethren  who  are  bearing  '  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day'  in  the 
Master's  vineyard. 

"  I  would  commend  the  book  to  the  attention  of  all  Christians,  and 
especially  to  my  beloved  brethren  in  the  ministry,  and  hope  that  they 
may  find  great  benefit  by  circulating  it  freely  among  the  people  of 
their  churches." — Extract  from  the  Author's  Preface. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  EPISTLE  OF  PAUL  THE  APOSTLE  TO 
THE  HEBRE\yS— By  Rev.  J,  A.  Seiss,  A.M.,  8vo.  This  is  a 
valuable  work,  highly  recommended  by  several  of  our  Synods  and 
most  eminent  clergymen.     There  are  but  few  left. 

THE  BAPTIST  SYSTEM  EXAMINED,  The  Church  Vindicated,  and 
Sectarianism  Rebuked.  A  Review  of  "  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  the 
Terras  of  Communion."    By  Fedelis  Scrutator — thick  18mo.  cloth. 

LIFE  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER— Being  a  comprehensive,  though  con- 
densed and  correct  History  of  the  Life  and  stupendous  achieve- 
ments of  the  Great  Reformer.  By  Rev.  R.  VVeiser,  ]2mo.  cloth — 
new  edition,  revised  and  corrected.  The  same  work,  illustrated 
with  fifteen  engravings,  representing  the  most  important  events  in 
Luther's  life  and  history. 

THE  LIFE  OF  LUTHER— With  Special  Reference  to  its  Earlier 
Periods,  and  the  opening  Scenes  of  the  Reformation.  By  Barnas 
Sears,  D.D.  This  is  an  original  work  :  with  three  fine  steel  and 
twenty-three  wood  engravings,  all  finished  in  the  highest  style  of 
the  art — 12mo.  cloth. 

A  DEFENCE  OF  LUTHER  AND  THE  REFORMATION.  By 
John  Bachraan,  D.D.,LL.D.,  against  the  Charges  of  John  Bellinger, 
M.D.,  and  others;  to  which  are  appended  various  Communications 
of  other  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic  writers  who  engaged  in 
the  controversy.    Large  12mo.  cloth. 

REGINA,  OR  THE  LITTLE  GERMAN   CAPTIVE.    By  Rev.  R. 

VVeiser,  Professor  in  Central  College  of  Iowa,  Fort  Des  Moines. 

Thick  18mo.,  cloth. 

This  is  an  intensely  interesting  narrative  of  a  little  German  girl,  who 
was  stolen  by  the  Indians,  and  retained  in  captivity  ?imc  years,  and 
finally  restored  to  her  mother.  It  should  be  in  the  library  of  every 
Christian  family  and  Sunday  School  m  the  land.  It  is  illustrated  with 
several  beautiful  and  appropriate  engravings. 

MEMOIR  OF  REV.  WALTER  GUNN,  late  Missionary  in  India, 
from  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States,  by  G. 
A.  Lintner,  D.D.,  l8mo.  cloth. 


A  MANUAL  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM:  INFANT  BAPTISM, 

AND  THE  MODE— By  Rev.  Thomas  Lape,  A.M.     Sixth  edition ; 

corrected  and  enlarged — 18nno. 
This  is  a  brief,  yet  comprehensive  work  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism, 

and  presents  the  whole  controversy  in  so  simple  a  form  and  clear 

a  light,  that  all  who  read  can  understand  it. 

DISCIPLINE,  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH,  AND  SYNODICAL  CON- 
STITUTION, AS  ADOPTED  BY  THE  EVANGELICAL  LU- 
THERAN SYNOD  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  and  adjacent  States, 
to  which  is  added  a  Liturgy,  and  some  forms  of  Prayer  for  families 
and  individuals — 12mo.  cloth. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  SALZBURGERS  AND  THEIR  DESCENDANTS. 
By  Rev.  P.  A.  Strobel— 12mo.  cloth. 

MANUAL  OF  SACRED  HISTORY— A  guide  to  the  understanding 
of  the  Divine  Plan  of  Salvation,  according  to  its  Historical  Develop- 
ment. By  John  Henry  Kurtz,  JD.D.,  Professor  of  Church  History  in 
the  University  of  Dorpat.  etc.  Translated  from  the  sixth  German 
edition,  by  Rev.  Prof.  Charles  F.  Schaeffer,  D.D. — Large  12rao. 

THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   By  Rev.  Dr.  Stork. 

THE  SEPULCHRES  OF  OUR  DEPARTED.  By  Rev.  F.  R.  An- 
spach,  A.M. — 12mo.  cloth. 

THE  LIFE  OF  PHILIP  MELANCTHON,  the  Friend  and  Companion 

of  Lnther,  according  to  his  Inner  and  Outer  Life.  Translated  from 
the  German  of  Charles  Frederick  Ledderhose,  by  the  Rev.  G.  F. 
Krotel.  of  Lancaster,  Pa.,  with  a  portrait  of  Melancthon — 12mo. 

MEMOIR  OF  THE  LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  HENRY  MELCHOIR 
MUHLENBERG,  D.D.,  Patriarch  of  the  Evang.  Luth.  Church  in 
America.  By  M.  L.  Stoever,  A.M.,  Professor  in  Penn.  College. 
12mo.,  cloth. 

LUTHER'S  CHRISTMAS  TREE,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Stork,— illustrated 
with  six  large  engravings,  representing  important  events  in  the 
life  and  times  of  Luther.    Small  4to.,  paper. 

STARCK'S  PRAYER-BOOK— In  German  and  English— 12mo. 

SCHMUCKER'S  (Dr.  J.  G.)  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  REVELA- 
TION OF  ST,  JOHN— In  English  and  German— 12mo ,  with  a 
portrait  of  the  author.     1^*  There  are  hai  few  left  of  this  work. 

JOHANN  ARNDT'S  WAHRES  CHRISTENTHUM— ARNDTS 
TRUE  CHRISTIANITY— In  German  and  English,  large  8vo.  shp. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  BOOK  OF  CONCORD,  or  Symbolical  Books  of 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  comprising  the  Three  Chief 


8 

Symbols,  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the 
Smalcaid  Articles,  Luther's  Smaller  and  Larger  Catec-hi^ms,  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  an  Appendix.  To  which  is  prefixed  an 
Historical  Introduction.  Second  edition,  carefully  revised  by  Rev. 
Drs.  C.  P.  Kranth,  W.  M.  Reynolds,  J.  G.  Morris,  C.  F.  Schaeffer, 
and  Rev.  W.  F.  Lehman.  Translated  from  the  German — large 
8vo.,  sheep. 

THE  UNALTERED  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  and  the  Three 
Chief  Symbols  of  the  Christian  Church,  with  Historical  Intro- 
ductions and  Critical  and  Explanatory  Notes.  By  Christian  Hein- 
rich  Schott ;  carefully  translated  from  the  German.     12rao.,  cloth. 

THEOLOGICAL  SKETCH  BOOK,  or  Skeletons  of  Sermons— 2  vols. 
8vo.,  half  cloth. 

HAZELIUS'  CHURCH  HISTORY— 12mo. 

LUTHER'S  COMMENTARY  on  Saint  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
to  which  is  prefixed  Tischer's  Life  of  Luther:  also  a  Sketch  of  the 
Life  of  Zuingle,  in  English  and  German — large  8vo.,  sheep. 

SELECT  TREATISES  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER,  with  the  Original 
German,  by  Rev.  B.  Sears.     12mo.,  cloth. 

THE  CANTICA  SACRA;  a  Collection  of  Church  Music,  embracing, 

besides  some  new  pieces,  a  choice  selection  of  German  and  English 

Chorals,  Set  Pieces,  Chants,  &c.,  from  the   best  European  and 

,  American  authors,  adapted  to  the  various  metres  in  use,  with  the 

Text  in  German  and  English,  by  Rev.  J.  J.  Fast. 

ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  ALMANAC— Containingvaluable  statistical 
and  general  information  of  the  Church ;  also  a  complete  list  of  all 
the  Lutheran  Ministers  in  the  United  States,  with  their  Post-Oflice 
address,  carefully  corrected — published  annually. 

BLANK  CERTIFICATES  of  Ordination,  Licensure,  Confirmation 
and  Marriage.  The  form  and  style  of  these  Certificates  are  entirely 
new  and  very  neat. 


STA]!^DARD  THEOLOGICAL 


VALUABLE  MISCELLANEOUS  BOOKS. 


THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  ARMINIUS,  D.D.,  formerly 
Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Leyden.  Translated  from 
the  Latin,  with  a  Sketch  of  the  Life  of  the  Author. 
It  may  not  be  generally  known  that  only  two  of  the  three  vols,  of 
the  Works  of  Arminius  have  ever  been  published  in  the  English 
language,  viz. :  The  edition  published  in  1825,  by  James  Nichols, 
London — the  third  volume  either  never  having  been  translated,  or  if 
it  was,  never  republished;  it  remains  for  an  American  translator  to 
render  the  third  volume  into  English,  and  for  an  American  publishing 
house  to  first  offer,  in  the  English  tongue,  the  complete  Works  of  the 
Great  Expounder  of  the  Arminian  System.  The  competency  of  the 
American  translator  for  his  task  is  vouched  for  by  those  who  know 
him  best,  and  who  are  well  and  favorably  known  by  the  literary  and 
religious  public.  The  works  of  Arminius  make  three  handsome 
octavo  vols,  of  about  600  pages  each,  well  printed  on  fair  type,  bound 
in  cloth. 

THE  COxMPREHENSIVE  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BIBLE— 
Containing  Scott's  Marginal  References;  Matt.  Henry's  Com- 
mentary; Practical  Observations  of  Rev.  Thomas  Scott,  D.D.,  with 
extensive  Explanatory,  Critical,  and  Philological  Notes,  selected 
from  Scott,  Doddridge,  Gill,  Adam  Clark,  Patrick,  Poole,  Lowth, 
Burder,  Harmer,  Calmet,  Stuart,  Robinson,  Bush,  Rosenmueller, 
Bloomfield,  and  many  other  writers  on  the  Scriptures.  The  whole 
designed  to  be  a  Digest  and  combination  of  the  advantages  of  the 
best  Bible  Commentaries,  embracing  all  that  is  valuable  in  Henry, 
Scott,  Doddridge,  &c.  In  six  volumes,  super  royal  octavo,  bound 
in  full,  strong  sheep. 

CLARKE'S  COMPLETE  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  OLD  AND 
NEW  TESTAMENT— 4  vols,  super  royal  8vo.,  in  full  strong  sheep. 


10 

CLARKE'S  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT— 2 
vols,  super  royal  8vo.,  full  sheep. 

SIMMON'S  SCRIPTURE  MANUAL,  Alphabetically  and  systema- 
tically arranged,  designed  to  facilitate  the  finding  of  proof-texts. 
This  is  a  truly  valuable  work. 

MACKNIGHT  ON  THE  EPISTLES,  with  a  Commentary  and  Notes; 
to  which  is  added  a  History  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 

CHRIST'S  SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT.— A  beautiful  little  minia- 
ture volume,  printed  on  large  type,  intended  as  a  pocket  vianual  for 
frequent  perusal.  It  is  a  very  appropriate  present  from  a  pastor 
to  a  church  member,  or  from  one  pious  friend  to  another. 

THE  HISTORY,  DOCTRINE,  GOVERNMENT  AND  STATISTICS 
OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  DENOMINATIONS  LN  THE  UNITED 
STATES,  with  a  preliminary  sketch  of  Judaism,  Paganism,  and 
Mohammedanism,  by  Joseph  Belcher,  D.D.  Embellished  with 
nearly  200  fine  engravings,  large  8vo.  roan,  embossed. 

THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  REV.  JOHN  GUMMING,  D.D.,  25 
vols.  ]2mo. 

BARNES'  NOTES  ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  11  vols.  12mo. 

Do.  Do.  JOB,  DANIEL,  AND  ISAIAH— 5  vols.  1 2mo. 

LIVES  AND  TIMES  of  the  Most  Distinguished  CHRISTIAN 
FATHERS,  to  the  close  of  the  3d  century,  8vo.  sheep. 

GAILLARD'S  CHURCH  HISTORY— Svo.  stiff  paper. 

GATHERED  TREASURES  FROM  THE  MINES  OF  LITERATURE  ; 
containing  Tales,  Sketches,  Anecdotes,  and  Gems  of  Thought; 
Literary,  Moral,  Pleasing,  and  Instructive,  Svo.  roan  embossed. 

PILGRIM'S  PROGRESS,  with  engravings,  18rao.,  cloth.— A  good 
edition  of  this  excellent  work. 

LOOKING-GLASS;  or,  Intellectual  Mirror— A  Juvenile  Book,  with 
64  engravings,  18mo.,  cloth. 

DODDRIDGE'S  RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  RELIGION  IN  THE 
SOUL— 32rao.,  cloth. 

KEMPIS'  CHRISTIAN'S  PATTERN— 32mo.,  cloth. 

MASON  ON  SELF-KNOWLEDGE— 32rao.,  cloth. 

MRS.  ROWE'S  DEVOTIONAL  EXERCISES  OF  THE  HEART.— 
32mo.,  cloth. 

YOUNG  AMERICAN;  or.  Book  of  Government  and  Law,  by  Peter 
Parley — 12mo.,  half  morocco. 


11 

JESUS'  WITNESSES,  or  the  "Great  Salvation  Exemplified."  12mo. 

THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  THOMAS  DICK,  LL.D.  Illustrated 
with  numerous  engravings,  2  vols.,  8vo.,  sheep. 

PLUTARCH'S  LIVES— 8 vo.,  sheep.    A  good  editiou. 

THE  SPECTATOR— by  Addison,  8vo.,  sheep. 

ROLLIN'S  ANCIENT  HISTORY— 2  vols.,  8vo.,  sheep. 

THE  W^RITINGS  OF  REV.  LORENZO  DOW,  containing  his  Expe- 
rience and  Travels  in  Europe  and  America;  also  his  Polemic 
writings,  8vo. 

BOOK-KEEPING  BY  SINGLE  AND  DOUBLE  ENTRY. 

Simplified  and  arranged,  according  to  the  present  Practice  of  well- 
regulated  Counting  Houses  in  the  United  States.  By  John  H.  Shea, 
Accountant. 

This  is  a  ■practical  system,  and  is  considered  one  of  the  best  works 
on  the  subject  of  Book-keeping  extant.  It  is  now  offered  at  a  reduced 
■price. 

This  Treatise  comprises  FORMS  of  RECEIPTS,  DRAFTS,  BILLS 
OF  PARCELS,  ACCOUNTS  CURRENT,  and  such  Accounts  as 
usually  occur  in  actual  business. 

Also,  USEFUL  CALCULATIONS  of  Interest,  Equations  or  Average 
of  Payments,  and  a  Vocabulary  of  Commercial  Terms,  in  Alpha- 
betical Order. 

It  contains  a  Series  of  Lectures  on  Double  Entry,  peculiarly 
adapted  to  extensive  and  complicated  business. 

The  Lectures  include  a  variety  of  Questions  concerning  Domestic 
Business — Discounting  and  Renewing  Bills — Importing  and  Export- 
ing— the  purchase  and  sale  of  Bills  of  Exchange — Commission  and 
Company  Accounts,  both  Domestic  and  Foreign, 


TO 

SUPERINTENDENTS  AND  TEACHERS 

or 

SUNDAY    SCHOOLS. 


The  undersigned  respectfully  announces  that  he  is  Agent  for  the 
sale  of  the  publications  of  the 

MASSACHUSETTS    SABBATH    SCHOOL    SOCIETY. 

And  is  prepared  to  furnish  them  at  the  lowest  catalogue  prices. 

These  publications  are  entirely  different  from  those  published  by  any 
other  Sunday  School  Society,  and  are  now  so  well  and  favorably 
known  throughout  the  country,  that  no  special  recommendation  ia 
deemed  necessary. 

The  whole  number  of  bound  volumes  of  this  Society  is  about  700, 
varying  in  price  from  7  cents  to  $1.  They  publish  20  different 
volumes  of  Scripture  Question  Books  for  Sabbath  Schools,  and  a  large 
number  of  Catechisms  for  Infant  Schools. 

The  Society  has  put  up  six  Selected  Libraries,  viz. : 

Little  Boy's  and  Girl's  Librart, 

The  Infant's  Library, 

The  Sabbath  School  Library, 

The  Family  Library, 

The  Children's  Library, 

The  Youth's  Library, 

The  prices  of  these  Sabbath  School  publications  are  fully  as  low, 
if  not  lower,  than  any  other  similar  Books  published  in  the  country, 
and  are  regarded  as  unexceptionable  on  the  score  of  sectarianism. 

A  full  assortment  will  always  be  kept  on  hand  and  for  sale  by  the 
undersigned.     Terms  cash. 

^^  Catalogues,  with  the  price  annexed  to  each  book,  will  be  fur- 
nished gratis,  when  applied  for. 

Also,  a  large  assortment  of  SCHOOL  AND  CLASSICAL 
BOOKS,  Pulpit  and  Family  BIBLES,  Books  of  Common  (Epis- 
copal)  Prayer,  Hymn  Books  of  the  various  Denominations,  Church 
Music  Books,  PAPER,  and  STATIONERY  generally,  for  sale 

at  WHOLESALE  AND  RETAIL  by 

T.  NEWTOKT  SUB.TZ, 

PUBLISHER,  BOOKSELLER,  AND  STATIONER, 

No.  151  West  Pratt  Street,  Baltimore,  Md. 


25  vols,  for    .     . 

.     .     $3  00 

40  vols,  for     .     . 

.     .       5  00 

100  vols,  for     .     . 

.     .     10  00 

25  vols,  for     .     . 

.     .     10  00 

100  vols,  for     .     . 

.     .     18  00 

150  vols,  for    .     . 

.     .     30  00 

THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


\ 


SANTA  BARftARA   * 


\ 


a  Yvyitiyg  viny;  o 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  995  146     8 


X 


o    IHe   IISRARY   OF 


/ 


